Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — N.A.T.O. AND U.S.S.R. ARMED FORCES

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the strength of the armed forces under the command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation compares with that of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): It is not the practice of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to disclose the detailed strength of its armed forces, but I would remind my hon. Friend of recent statements by the Supreme Allied Commander that our military effectiveness in Europe is about three times as strong today as it was in 1951. If my hon. Friend will compare this estimate with the figures given to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) on 10th May, he will find this is not an unsatisfactory increase, though much remains to be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOVIET EMBASSY ATTACHÉS (ESPIONAGE)

Squadron Leader Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the decision to expel two Soviet Embassy personnel from this country.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I informed the Soviet Ambassador on 7th May that two Assistant Military Air Attachés at the Soviet Embassy, Major Pupyshev and Major Gudkov, had abused their diplomatic status in the United Kingdom by attempting to engage in espionage and that Major Pupyshev had been delected in a blatant attempt to suborn a serving officer of Her Majesty's Forces. I am glad to add that Major Pupyshev's attempt was unsuccessful and that the British officer whom he tried to suborn behaved in an exemplary manner. Major Gudkov made at least three attempts to recruit agents.

Squadron Leader Cooper: While complimenting my right hon. and learned Friend on the promptness and the expedition with which this problem was handled by the Foreign Office, may I ask whether he is aware that a powerful fifth column exists in the shop stewards movement of this country? Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that our security measures are such that Communist shop stewards in this country have not access to secret processes or information which would be of value to the Soviet Union?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the question of what Communists in this country have or have not access to is not a matter for the Foreign Office. As to the category of persons referred to in the Question and answer, I think that the security services did a very good job of work.

Mr. H. Hynd: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any evidence that shop stewards are predominantly Communists?

Sir H. Williams: He did not say that.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH-EAST ASIA (DEFENCE)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received from the Indian Government


to his communication regarding Indian support for a settlement in Indo-China.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) on 10th May and to replies given to him and other hon. Members on this point on 13th May by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Warbey: How much longer is this matter going to be kept secret by the Government? In view of the fact that the Indian Government themselves have issued a statement on this question and have made it quite clear that they are not prepared to underwrite any settlement in Indo-China which is not agreed by all the parties, what is the reason for keeping it dark?

Mr. Lloyd: If the Indian Government have already stated that position publicly, nothing is being kept dark. What Her Majesty's Government object to is that when we are being constantly urged to engage in consultations particularly with the Asian members of the Commonwealth, we should be expected to make public the nature of the conversations.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has received from the Governments of India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma and Indonesia regarding the formation of a regional security organisation for South-East Asia.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has informed the House, these diplomatic exchanges are confidential and if the confidence were not respected the exchanges would be seriously impaired. Her Majesty's Government attach the greatest importance to maintaining a full and frank exchange of views with the Asian countries concerned, especially on matters concerning the security of South-East Asia, and I am sure that hon. Members would not wish Her Majesty's Government to remove the necessary basis of confidence which makes such an exchange of views possible.

Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman capable at all of giving a plain answer to a plain question? Will he tell the House whether any of these countries have made any proposal

for the formation of a South-East Asia military security organisation?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not prepared to tell the House what confidential proposals have or have not been made.

Mr. Warbey: Is it not the case that none of them have made any such proposals?

Mr. Lloyd: It is certainly untrue that these countries have failed to answer with regard to the question of South-East Asia security.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the informal discussions with the Governments of the United States of America and other countries concerning an interim collective security arrangement for South-East Asia.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I would ask the hon. Member to await the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making to Questions Nos. 40 and 44.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUEZ CANAL (SHIPPING RESTRICTIONS)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Security Council of the United Nations has completed its consideration of the complaint by the Israeli Government in regard to the illegal stopping of ships by Egypt in the Suez Canal; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It became clear during the course of the debate in the Security Council that Egypt was not prepared to comply with the Council's 1951 Resolution calling upon her to terminate her restrictions on the passage of international shipping and goods through the Suez Canal. A further draft Resolution calling upon her to comply with the 1951 Resolution was accordingly introduced by New Zealand and put to the vote on 29th March. Voting was eight to two in favour of the Resolution (with one abstention) but as the Soviet Union voted against, the Resolution failed to carry.
Although the use of the veto in these circumstances is to be deplored, it in no way affects the validity of the 1951 Resolution, and I trust that the Egyptian Government will not remain indifferent to the


weight of feeling expressed against them on this issue during the recent debate.

Mr. Shinwell: If the Egyptian Government refuse to carry out the 1951 Resolution and defy the United Nations Organisation in this respect, is no action of any kind to be taken against them?

Mr. Lloyd: I quite agree that the refusal to comply with the Resolution of the United Nations in this question is a very serious matter. When the blockade appeared likely to be extended before Christmas last year the matter was again taken before the United Nations, and it is a fact that the extensions have not since been carried out.

Mr. A. Henderson: Has Russia changed her viewpoint on this matter since 1951?

Mr. Lloyd: In 1951 she certainly did not vote against the Resolution.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that the question is based not so much on the Israeli position as on the fact that the Suez Canal is an international highway and has been recognised as such for a long time?

Mr. Lloyd: I quite appreciate the position.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not the case that the Egyptian Government had obligations in this matter long before U.N.O. came into being? Are not they in breach of their solemn contract?

Mr. Lloyd: In the view of Her Majesty's Government they have no legal right to take this action.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is the House to take it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman implies that the Egyptian Government took a different view of their legal obligations prior to the inception of the United Nations? If there is a dispute as to the proper interpretation of the treaties, are not steps open to us to have the dispute resolved?

Mr. Lloyd: It is quite correct that the Egyptian Government adopt a legal view of the position quite irrespective of that of the United Nations. The matter to which the hon. Member refers certainly bears consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENOCIDE CONVENTION (RATIFICATIONS)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many nations have now ratified the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; and whether Her Majesty's Government will now ratify the covenant.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Forty-three States have now ratified or acceded to the Convention on Genocide. As regards Her Majesty's Government's position, I have nothing to add to the statement which my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary made in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) on 11th November.

Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. and: learned Gentleman aware of the fact that our attitude in this matter is regarded as an unsatisfactory one and is, in effect, delaying the carrying into effect of a convention of which we approved? Will he say when he proposes to consider the legal' position, so that, even if technical reservations have to be introduced, we can accept the Convention with such reservations?

Mr. Lloyd: With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's question, I think that we have made our attitude towards the crime of genocide perfectly clear by performance as well as words. So far as the legal aspect is concerned, we do not believe in adhering to a convention unless we are prepared to bring in all the necessary legislation to define precisely the crimes which are referred to. That legislation is somewhat complicated, and there is also the question of finding time for it in the legislative programme.

Mr. Janner: But the right hon. and learned Gentleman said a year ago, and several years ago, that this matter was under consideration. Is it not time that this terrible crime was banned officially by us? Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman introduce the necessary legislation?

Mr. Lloyd: There are many difficulties involved. One is that it extends the number of crimes to which the death penalty applies, and it is a question whether it is desirable to do that when steps are being taken to consider the whole question of the death penalty. The matter is one of considerable complication.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAUDI ARABIAN OIL (SHIPPING AGREEMENT)

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the agreement entered into between the Saudi Arabian Government and Mr. Aristotle Socratis Onassis with regard to the transport of oil which will debar British shipping from participation in this trade; and, in view of the unfair discrimination against British interests, whether he will make representations to protect British shipping.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I understand that an agreement has been made, but the text has not yet been published. If it is confirmed that the agreement will result in discrimination against British shipping, I will certainly consider what steps can usefully be taken.

Mr. Hoy: In taking this matter into consideration, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also bear in mind that if discrimination does result it is likely to cost Great Britain £10 million in invisible exports, in addition to the considerable work which might be lost to British shipyards?

Mr. Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government absolutely agree, and wish to make it quite clear that flag discrimination in peace-time is contrary to the best interests of international commerce and to the long-established practice of traditional maritime nations.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not surprising—not only in regard to this but to other matters which have already been raised at Question time today—that the Government appear to be doing nothing? Why this inactivity? What would have happened if a Labour Government had been in power?

Mr. Lloyd: I imagine that if a Labour Government had been in power they would have been prodded by the Opposition. That is the duty of an Opposition. This is a serious matter, and there are many ways in which we can seek to bring pressure to bear upon other nations. I do not imagine that many hon. Members opposite would be in favour of going to war on an issue of this sort.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (OCCUPATION COSTS)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the monthly quota of occupation costs to which Her Majesty's Government are entitled from the Federal German Re public; and how much of this quota has been taken up in recent months.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Occupation costs, which are provided for all the Allied Powers, amount to DM. 600 million— about £50 million—a month. Within this total the allocations made by the Allied High Commission to the various Powers are confidential. In the case of Her Majesty's Government, they meet British requirements and are fully taken up.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say to what extent the 600 million marks monthly is not being taken up jointly by the Allied Powers?

Mr. Lloyd: So far as I know, it is being fully taken up. Certainly the British quota is being fully taken up.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what negotiations are being conducted with the Federal German Republic with a view to ending the payment of occupation costs in respect of British troops in Germany.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: None, Sir.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the present arrangement comes to an end in a few weeks' time? What is being done to provide for the future and to ensure that the British taxpayer shall not find himself saddled with an obligation of another £100 million a year as from 1st July next?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a rather different question from the precise form of words in the Question on the Order Paper, which I have answered. Negotiations are proceeding with regard to the total de-fence contribution after the coming into force of the E.D.C. agreement.

Mr. E. Fletcher: May we take it from what the Minister of State has said that there will be no reduction in the German


contribution to British Government costs until the Bonn Treaties have been ratified by all the necessary countries?

Mr. Lloyd: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. Jay: How soon can the Minister give the House some information about the way in which this very large item of expenditure is to be borne?

Mr. Lloyd: The first question is to see whether there is another period after 30th June this year.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. ROGER BANNISTER (VISIT TO UNITED STATES)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements were made by the British Information Service in New York for the appearance of Mr. Roger Bannister in a television programme sponsored by the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The British Information Services, New York, were asked by a producer of programmes to transmit an invitation to Mr. Bannister to appear on television. The Foreign Office were glad to ask Mr. Bannister to accept this invitation as it was felt that nothing but good to Anglo-American relations would result. At the time it was thought that no difficulties over Mr. Bannister's amateur status would arise from his undertaking a visit from which he himself would receive no personal gain.
After arrangements had been made for Mr. Bannister's journey, some doubt arose on the ground that his appearance was to be on a sponsored programme. The rules on status vary from sport to sport (and appear about as complicated as those relating to offices of profit under the Crown). In the circumstances, it was decided that it would be wiser for him not to appear in that particular programme. Her Majesty's Government have assumed full financial responsibility for his visit.
The visit has been an outstanding success. I have a long list with me of the various radio and television appearances which he made, and his other public engagements. He received a great welcome in New York and says he

thoroughly enjoyed his visit, and I am sure that it has been a very good thing for Anglo-American relations.

Mr. Hughes: Did the Foreign Office know at the time that Mr. Bannister's reputation was going to be exploited by sponsored television to make money for a tobacco company, although the gentleman is not a smoker? Does not that show the dangers of sponsored television, and will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us an assurance that when we have sponsored television he will not bring over here an American athlete to boost Scotch whisky although he may not be a whisky drinker?

Mr. Lloyd: Appearances on sponsored television are a recognised form of publicity in the United States. I am quite certain that many hon. Members have appeared on sponsored television without being contaminated thereby.

Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that this episode will increase the wish of the British public to have commercial TV foisted on them?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman should introduce his monopolistic feelings or his spleen against commercial television into a matter of this sort.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Tinned Milk Stocks (Disposal)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food if he can yet state the decision reached, following consultation with both sides of the milk industry, on the disposal of stocks of evaporated milk, full cream condensed milk and skimmed condensed milk.

The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): The trade has agreed to take over a substantial part of these stocks but they will be disposed of gradually to avoid dislocating the home manufacturing and marketing programme.

Sausages (Meat Content)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement indicating the results of the inquiry into the meat content of sausages.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food whether he will make provision to ensure good standards of meat content in sausages.

Major Lloyd George: The results of the inquiry are being examined in consultation with the appropriate trade organisations, and I hope to be able to make a statement in due course.

Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate that there is evidence that as more meat is available less is going into some sausages? There are many good manufacturers who resent the fact that there are backsliders. Will he, if he wants to go down in history as a great man, try to solve the sausage mystery?

Major Lloyd George: If I were to solve the sausage mystery, I should go down in history as a great man. However, what, I think, the hon. Gentleman wants to know is this. All the public health authorities have been circulated to let us know what has happened since the decontrol of meat content, and we have had replies from about 260. The inquiries show that, on the average, the meat content is up since decontrol. There is, of course, a very great difference of opinion amongst public analysts. Some think 50 per cent, meat content is sufficient, and others that 65 per cent, is right. One goes so far as to think the content should be 75 per cent. However, I am looking into this matter, and will make a statement as soon as I can.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, if he solves the sausage mystery, he will lighten the work of the courts?

Major Lloyd George: Yes.

Captain Waterhouse: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend do something through the manufacturers or others to try to get them to make sausages that taste like sausages as well as look like sausages?

Major Lloyd George: The trouble with sausages, of course, is that there are so many different tastes, even in one family, that I think that a standard sausage would be extremely unpopular. I am asking the manufacturers and other interests concerned to meet me as soon as possible to discuss the result of the inquiry with them.

Fruit and Vegetables (Distribution)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to improve the distribution of fruit and vegetables.

Major Lloyd George: As the hon. Member well knows, there is no quick or easy way of improving the present system, and I cannot usefully add to what I have already said on past occasions.

Mr. Willey: In view of the fact that the main difficulty was that of capital expenditure, and in view of the improved position now, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman energetically look at this matter?

Major Lloyd George: I am always prepared to look at this question, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is an extremely difficult one. The capital expenditure involved is very considerable, as he knows.

Mr. Godber: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend consult the Minister of Agriculture, and consider whether the time is not opportune for setting up a Royal Commission to go into the whole question of horticultural marketing? There have been a number of Departmental investigations, but surely a Royal Commission might do some very useful work?

Major Lloyd George: I am prepared to consider anything, for this is a matter of some importance, but over the last 30 years there have been a large number of inquiries into this extremely difficult question. There is a good deal of exaggeration in the matter, and there are also a tremendous number of interests to be consulted before I can go any further, but I will certainly have a look at it.

Long-term Contracts

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food what representations have been made to him regarding the continuance of those long-term contracts for the procurement of foodstuffs still in force.

Major Lloyd George: The only recent representations on long-term contracts still in force have been on West African vegetable oils and oilseeds, for which the marketing boards concerned have proposed, and we have agreed, the termination of the contracts at 30th June, 1954,


and on New Zealand meat which the Ministry of Food will, by mutual agreement, cease to purchase 12 months earlier than the long-term contract provided. Discussions about the marketing under decontrol of Australian milk products during the last 12 months of the long-term contract are now proceeding, and parallel discussions about New Zealand milk products will open later this month.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIKORSKY S.56 HELICOPTER

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Supply to what extent he is assisting the progress made in the production of the Sikorsky S.56 30–40 seater helicopter, which could be made in this country, in view of the fact that there is an indication that it will meet the need of an economic proposition in the development of this form of air transport.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): If the hon. Member will let me know what kind of assistance to production he has in mind, I shall be happy to consider it.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman not of the opinion that this S.56 is years ahead of any other type of helicopter capable of carrying from 30 to 40 passengers, and would he not consider as soon as practicable acquiring some of these helicopters and handing them over to B.E.A.C. for development and group flying experience before it is too late?

Mr. Sandys: I think that is rather an involved proposal, but I shall be glad to consider it. A few days ago the hon. Gentleman gave notice that he proposed to raise the whole matter on the Adjournment. That would seem to me to be a more suitable occasion to go into detailed questions.

Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that, whereas there are six Ministers here now, on the Adjournment there would be only the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, and that I hope that other Ministers will not shelter under his umbrella?

Mr. Sandys: The Question that the hon. Gentleman asked, on which he gave notice he would raise the matter on the Adjournment, was almost identical to this one.

Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind very valuable flying data in connection with helicopters has been obtained from the S.51 services operated by B.E.A.C. on such routes as Birmingham to Northolt and Liverpool to Cardiff? Why has there been a cessation in the last 12 months of those experimental flights? Could we not continue with the S.55, for instance, as a preliminary to the machine mentioned in this. Question?

Mr. Peyton: Will my right hon. Friend ensure and give an undertaking that if the S.56 is to be used here it will be made in this country and not acquired from the United States?

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

War Pensions

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if his attention has been drawn to the inadequacy of the war disablement pension, particularly for those who are in receipt of the 100 per cent, pension and for war widows; and what are now the prospects of raising such pensions.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Brigadier J. G. Smyth): There is nothing I can usefully add to what I said on this subject in the debate on the Adjournment on 8th February and in reply to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) on 5th April.

Mr. Slater: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that there is wide discontent amongst branches of the British Legion and generally among disabled ex-Service men, and does he not think it is time for action to be taken to raise the pension rates to increase the pensioners' purchasing power?

Brigadier Smyth: I am aware, of course, that a pensions campaign has been in progress. I would remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said on 8th February:
My right hon. Friend sincerely hopes that during the life of the present Government our national situation will improve to such an extent that it may become possible to do something more for war pensioners and their dependants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February. 1954; Vol. 523, c. 972.]


The Chancellor of the Exchequer said on 12th April:
It must not be thought that because a particular reform is not in the Budget it is therefore not in the mind of the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1954; Vol. 526, c. 918.]

Dr. King: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a few days ago the annual conference of B.L.E.S.M.A.—the British Limbless Ex-Service Men's Association—a moderate and modest body, expressed disappointment that the Government have not met the claims, which have received support from both sides of the House? Cannot the Minister do something now instead of waiting for the quinquennial review?

Brigadier Smyth: I am aware, of course, that the purchasing value of the 100 per cent, pension is only 4s. 6d. a week more now than it was when the Government took office in October, 1951. My right hon. Friend has that point very much in mind.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that there is a very considerable measure of support for this plea on both sides of the House, and will he once again look into the possibility of ensuring at least that the battle casualties receive complete priority over everybody else?

Brigadier Smyth: indicated assent.

Widows' Pensions

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what consideration is his Department giving to the question of raising the standard rates of pensions for widows; and what possibilities there are for granting increases.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. R. H. Turton): The standard rate of pensions for widows under the National Insurance Acts is included in the consideration to be given to the level of all pensions and benefits. With regard to the second part of the Question, I cannot add anything to the statement I made to the House on 19th March.

Mr. Slater: Is the Minister not aware that these widows, like old-age pensioners, are finding great difficulty in

living on their present rates owing to the policy of the Government of seeking to ration by the purse? Is it not time that the Government got away from such a policy, in the interests of these unfortunate people?

Mr. Turton: I remind the hon. Member that, in my statement on 19th March, I said:
It is indeed our aim that, should the finances and the economics of the country permit, the level of benefits and pensions should be restored without delay to the level which they had when the National Insurance Scheme was introduced."—(OFFICIAL REPORT. 19th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 816.]

Pneumoconiosis

Mr. Finch: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many applications have been made to the medical boards for death certificates in respect of pneumoconiosis during the past year; how many have been granted; and what are the numbers in respect of those who had been employed in the coal mining industry in Wales.

Mr. Turton: In 1953, the Silicosis Medical Board dealt with 537 applications for death certificates for the purposes of schemes made under the Workmen's Compensation Acts; in 397 cases the Board certified that death had been caused by the disease. Under the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Scheme of 1952, 394 awards of death benefit were made in 1953 for deaths from pneumoconiosis, and 159 applications were rejected because the Silicosis Medical Board certified that death was not due to the disease. Separate figures are not available for the coal-mining industry in Wales.

Mr. Finch: In view of the disparity between the figures of applications to medical boards in respect of death from pneumoconiosis and the number of certificates granted, and the large number of cases in which there has been a refusal to grant certificates and the differing views of medical men at inquests as to the cause of death, will the Minister cause an investigation to be made into this aspect of pneumoconiosis?

Mr. Turton: If the hon. Member studies the figures I have given, I think he will find that there is not that great difference between the numbers.

Mr. Warbey: Is the Minister aware that, in the case of the Sheffield pneumoconiosis panel, there has been a fall in the proportion of claims for benefit accepted by the Board in 1953 compared with 1952, and that this has caused concern? May there not be a case for an inquiry into the methods of diagnosis?

Mr. Turton: I do not think the hon. Member is referring to the figures I have given in answer to the Question. Claims under the Industrial Injuries Act are dealt with not by boards, but by insurance officers.

Mr. Finch: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that, at inquests, when death has been thought to be due to pneumoconiosis, very frequently in South Wales the medical men have said that death has been caused by pneumoconiosis but the medical board has later said otherwise?

Mr. Turton: I am aware that dissatisfaction has been felt on the question of coroners' inquests and medical boards. My right hon. Friend is at present in discussions with the Home Secretary on this matter, and I understand that during the Committee proceedings on the Mines and Quarries Bill my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power also undertook to raise the matter with the Home Secretary. I think it had better be left there.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Trolley Buses, London (Replacement)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what estimate he has formed of the additional fuel oil consumption that will be entailed in a full year consequent upon the decision to replace approximately 1,800 London electric trolley buses by diesel-powered vehicles, and of the effect upon the load-factor of power-houses in the Greater London area following diminution of the road traction electricity demand, notably at off-peak hours.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): About 28,000 tons of diesel oil, with negligible effect on the electricity load factor in Greater London.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the fuel aspect of this matter, and in view of my right hon. Friend's responsibilities under Section 1 of the Ministry of Fuel and Power Act, 1945, does my hon. Friend consider it judicious to swing over from low-grade indigenous fuel burnt at power houses to imported fuel? In view of our very large investment at the present time in electric power houses, is not this decision by a nationalised authority inimical to the national interest?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: No, I do not think it is at all inimical to the national interest.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is not the overriding factor the easing of the flow of London traffic? If the experts take the view that by switching over in this way the traffic of London will be to some extent relieved, that should be the overriding consideration.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I would not say that that was the sole factor, but it certainly is an important factor.

Mr. Teeling: Does my hon. Friend realise that whatever is done in London is likely also to have a considerable influence on the provinces? Is he aware that in Brighton, for instance, discussions are at present taking place because of what is happening in London? Will my hon. Friend bear this in mind with regard to the possible increase in fuel used over the whole country?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Yes, Sir, certainly. The situation in London is different from anywhere else in the country, because nearly 50 per cent, of the trolley bus electricity is drawn from the London Transport Executive's power houses. It is for that reason, owing to the demand on those generating plants for electricity for railway traction, that the load factor is actually improved by the removal of the trolley buses.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of this decision by a nationalised authority, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oil (Industrial Power)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power to what extent refining capacity for oil and oil producers has increased in the United Kingdom since


1945, expressed percentum and in tons per annum; to what extent fuel oil has increasingly, or otherwise, been employed since 1945 to date as a substitute for coal in furnishing the sources of industrial power; and what the policy of Her Majesty's Government is in relation to substitution of oil for coal, in the future.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Elevenfold, from 2½ million tons in 1945 to about 28 million today. The extent to which fuel oil has replaced coal for industrial purposes cannot be firmly estimated but total inland deliveries of fuel oil have increased from 0·2 to 3·8 million tons during the period and it may be assumed that this represents a current annual saving of about 6 million tons of coal. Her Majesty's Government offer loans to industrialists who can make worthwhile savings by changing from coal to oil burning.

Mr. Nabarro: What about domestic consumers? Can my hon. Friend undertake to give guidance to a large number of householders and commercial concerns who urgently want to know, in present circumstances and in view of the low quality of much of the coal that is available to them, whether it is likely to be successful for them to switch over to oil? Will he give an undertaking to investigate this aspect of the matter?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: My right hon. Friend's fuel efficiency branch is always out to be helpful.

Mr. Usborne: Does the Minister realise that the public need no help from the Government on this? They have already made up their minds and are burning oil just as fast as they can get the mechanism.

Coal Imports

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much coal was imported in the year to 30th April, 1954, and at what total cost; what were the countries of origin; how much of the coal imports came from East or West Germany or Poland; and how much more coal he proposes to import, or has already consented to import, during the period 1st May, 1954, to 30th April, 1955.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Approximately 792,000 tons at a landed cost of about £5 million, the main sources being

Belgium, France and Western Germany. None came from Eastern Germany, 67,000 tons came from Western Germany and 2,300 tons from Poland. Under present arrangements approximately 200,000 tons have yet to come in. My right hon. Friend has not yet announced any future import programme.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the fact that the whole of this imported coal is being sold by the National Coal Board at a substantial loss, can my hon. Friend say to what extent the losses, either already incurred or envisaged, have been taken into account by the Coal Board in its recent and latest increase in the price of domestic coal?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The losses on imported coal are part of the items which make up the budget which has recently been dealt with by the National Coal Board's rise in prices.

Sir R. Boothby: Is my hon. Friend really satisfied that the importation of this coal is necessary?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Yes, Sir. It is in pursuance of the policy announced by my right hon. Friend on 13th July.

Domestic Coal (Delivery Notes)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in order to safeguard the interests of consumers, he will take steps to ensure that retail merchants of domestic fuel supply with each delivery of fuel a receipt showing clearly the grade and price per hundredweight.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Retail merchants are already required to supply delivery notes specifying the price and the grade of the coal when deliveries exceed 2 cwts.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some retailers are not doing that and that if the consumer has a grievance about the quality, price or quantity it will be difficult to get redress? Will he therefore inform retailers that it its an offence not to give a receipt?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: As the hon. Gentleman has said, it is an offence not to supply delivery notes in those circumstances, and I have no doubt that his Question and my answer will call attention to the fact if it is not being carried out at present.

Polish Coal

W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that 250,000 tons of coal are being imported from Poland; and if, in view of the effect of this on our trade balance and the fact that there is unlimited coal in Britain, ne will in future refuse to give his authority for such imports.

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much Polish coal is being imported this year; what is the total cost of such coal and by whom is it borne; and what proportion of those imports has to date been carried in British ships.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The National Coal Board have contracted to buy 100,000 tons of Polish coal. About 4,800 tons have so far arrived carried in two Polish ships. I am not prepared to state the terms of the contract, which was based on commercial considerations. My right hon. Friend considers applications for such imports in the light of the circumstances at the time.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Minister inaugurate an educational campaign among miners to tell them that Britain is the one country that cannot become self-supporting, that our survival depends on our ability to export goods and services at competitive prices, of which coal could be a major factor, and that unless we can do that there will be no wages for the miner or anybody else?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I think the leaders of the National Union of Mineworkers have already made the general sense of that observation quite plain throughout the coalfields.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that the miners need no education from hon. Members opposite? Would the hon. Gentleman indicate why, since it is a Government decision to import this coal, the National Coal Board should have to make good the loss, and that that should be used as an argument against further wage increases for the miners? Further, might I ask him why this coal is not being carried in British ships?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The reason why it is not being carried in British ships is because the quotations for these two shiploads were lower than any others,

but I am happy to say that further charters have been entered into at competitive prices with some British ships.

Mr. Nicholson: My hon. Friend said in his reply that he could not state the terms, which were based on commercial reasons. Will he say what are the commercial reasons?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: What I actually said was that the terms of the contract were based on commercial considerations. The contract has not yet been completed, and I do not think it would be desirable to make the terms public as yet.

Mr. Slater: Can the Minister state the difference in freightage charges operating now and those when coal was imported into this country under the late Administration?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Not without notice, at any rate.

Coal Prices (Transport Costs and Profits)

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power by how much the retail cost of domestic coal at Southampton, Plymouth and Brighton is due to transport charges;and by how much to retailers' profit margins.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Forty shillings and elevenpence, 42s. 7d. and 39s. 7d. per ton, respectively, for transport costs and 2s. 3d. in each case for profit margin.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR SURPLUS STOCKS (DISPOSAL)

Mr. Burden: asked the Minister of State, Board of Trade, as representing the Minister of Materials, when it is expected to complete the disposal of surplus stocks left over from the war and the subsequent period of shortages and valued at about £50 million; what is the present value of the stock; and what was the value of the stock disposed of during the 12 months ended 31st March, 1954.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): Terminal stocks to the value of about £75 million were disposed of in the year ended 31st March last, and further disposals to the value of about £40 million are expected to take place during this financial year. There are also certain commitments to take up non-ferrous metals and raw cotton under


continuing contracts. The work of disposal, on a much diminished scale, will extend into the next financial year but should virtually be completed in that year except for any fresh disposal liabilities that may arise in respect of jute and cotton. The figure quoted by my hon. Friend of the current value of residual trading stocks is the one I gave him on 10th May. I have no more up-to-date figure.

Mr. Burden: Can we take it that with the lowering of the stocks held the numbers of staff engaged in administering these stocks will also be reduced?

Mr. Amory: Yes, Sir, I can assure my hon. Friend that the staffs will be running down.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether his Department made a profit or a loss on the stocks sold during the year ending 31st March?

Mr. Amory: That is a difficult matter for me to deal with offhand.

Mr. Slater: Can the hon. Gentleman inform us whether all these stocks were in the empty cupboards left by the previous Administration?

Mr. Amory: Some of them have come in as a result of continuing contracts during the past 2½ years.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH-EAST ASIA (DEFENCE)

Mr. Bevan: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the proposed security pact for South-East Asia.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make his promised statement on the progress towards a South-East Asian defence pact.

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will make a statement regarding the proposed Asian security pact;
(2) whether he will make a statement regarding the Geneva Conference.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to consider the Anzus Pact as the nucleus of the proposed South-East Asia Pact.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members for postponing these Questions until now.
The Geneva Conference is now entering on its fourth week. The immediate object of the discussions about Indo-China is to bring the fighting to an end on terms acceptable to both sides. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is doing all in his power to help in finding an agreed basis for this, and I am sure the House would not wish that anything should be said which might make his task more difficult. Moreover, the situation is in constant flux. As those who have put these Questions on the Paper have no doubt seen for themselves, it has undergone changes even since last Thursday. I certainly feel sympathy with the desire of many Members of the House to discuss more fully than is possible at Question time the whole foreign situation in all its bearings, but I cannot yet fix a suitable occasion. It certainly would be a great advantage—I think we should all agree to this—if the Foreign Secretary himself were present to give his own account of the events which have taken place and set his own proportion upon them.
All I will therefore say today is that until the outcome of the Conference is known, final decisions cannot be taken regarding the establishment of a collective defence in South-East Asia and the Western Pacific. Meanwhile it will be clear from the statements already made that Her Majesty's Government have not embarked on any negotiation involving commitments.
These problems of future policy to which I have just referred are, of course, quite distinct from the question of the examinations undertaken without commitment by existing military agencies, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State referred in reply to a Question on 10th of May. They are equally distinct from the conversations which, as reported in the Press, have been in progress during the past few days between the United States and French Governments about the situation in Indo-China.
In our consideration of all these matters, we are maintaining the closest touch with the Governments of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, and also with the


Government of Burma. All these Governments are being kept fully informed from day to day of the development of events at the Geneva Conference, since we fully realise that they will be closely affected by its outcome and may feel willing to make a contribution towards it. There is, of course, also very intimate consultation with the Governments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand through their Delegations at Geneva as well as through the usual channels of Commonwealth consultation.
It should not, however, be thought that the terms of this statement cast any doubt upon our readiness to examine, when the outcome of the Geneva Conference is clearer, the possibility of establishing a system of collective security and defence in South-East Asia and the Western Pacific within the framework of the United Nations. We shall certainly do so. But our immediate task is to do everything we can to reach an agreed settlement at Geneva for the restoration of peace in Indo-China. Her Majesty's Government are resolved to do their utmost to achieve this aim and to exercise their influence to ensure that any acceptable settlement shall be backed by effective international guarantees.

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread appreciation of the difficulty of his answering in more detail while the Geneva Conference is on? At the same time, is he also aware that there will be general assent to any reinforcement of a settlement in South-East Asia in which India and China were taking part in order to bring about peace, but that there will be resentment about a collective peace designed to encircle China by any military entanglements?

The Prime Minister: I will bear that in mind.

Mr. Donnelly: Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify one point? He said that there was a distinction between the general talks which were taking place, and to which the Minister of State referred, and the talks which are taking place between the French and United States Governments; will the right hon. Gentleman give a firm assurance that there is no contemplation on the part of Her Majesty's Government of any kind of military intervention in Indo-China

before the outcome of the Geneva Conference is known?

The Prime Minister: I think that was very clearly shown in my answer.

Sir R. Boothby: Will the Prime Minister consider sending a message of encouragement from the House as a whole to the Foreign Secretary in his valiant and sustained exertions in the cause of peace in the Far East?

Mr. Wyatt: Will the Prime Minister say whether, in considering this pact for South-East Asia, the problem of economic aid to the countries concerned is being borne in mind, as that is the main reason why N.A.T.O. has been a success in Europe, that economic aid has been given to the countries concerned?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I am sure that all such matters would be relevant.

Mr. Strachey: Would the Prime Minister agree that in any question of a pact guaranteeing the nations of South-East Asia a prerequisite is that those nations should desire to be so guaranteed, because surely it is a most doubtful policy to guarantee people who do not wish to be guaranteed?

The Prime Minister: That is a point which no doubt will be mentioned in the course of these discussions.

Mr. Warbey: Can the right hon. Gentleman clear up a point which the Minister of State was unable to clear up earlier, namely, can he say whether or not any initiative has come from the Governments of India, Pakistan, Burma, Ceylon or Indonesia for the formation of such a military pact in South-East Asia?

The Prime Minister: I think I would rather deal with that as a whole, not on that one particular point.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAX ALLOWANCES (ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why he apologised to the Institute of Directors for the action of the Inland Revenue in asking for details about the entertainment expenses of company directors.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I did not apologise because the Inland Revenue asked for details of entertainment expenses. I said that the Board of Inland Revenue regretted that an error of judgment had been made by a particular tax office in demanding in a particular case unnecessarily detailed information on matters which went far beyond entertainment expenses.

Mr. Hughes: Could the Minister differentiate between an expression of regret and an apology, and was not that branch of the Inland Revenue Department carrying out its job in trying to prevent tax evasion, and was it necessary to make this humiliating and grovelling apology when his officers were only doing their duty and helping the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I tried to explain in my original answer, the expression of regret was because unnecessary particulars were asked for in this case. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I always apologise when I am in error, though that does not often happen.

Mr. Jay: Yes, but does the Financial Secretary still stand by the undertaking given by the Chancellor on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill last year, that he would back the Inland Revenue in all steps it took to prevent tax evasion?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Nothing I have said in reply to this Question diminishes in any way what my right hon. Friend said on that or any other occasion. This matter, as I have tried to explain, relates solely to an individual case in which it seemed to me that inquisition was being carried definitely too far.

Mr. H. Morrison: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what were the excessive inquiries made in this case?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: They were very long and detailed but, if they would interest the right hon. Gentleman, I will gladly send them to him.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would the Financial Secretary circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Subject to any view that the authorities may have on the point, I should have no objection.

Mr. Nabarro: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this incident arose from an inquiry made by the Inland Revenue as to the number of haircuts a business executive had in New York?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is nothing about haircuts in it, although I am bound to say it looks rather like a "close shave."

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Financial Secretary give an assurance that the Inland Revenue officer concerned, whose zeal the right hon. Gentleman has deprecated, is not being subjected to any disciplinary punishment; in other words, that he will not be penalised for acting in what he conceived to be in good faith in the public interest?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No officer is penalised for acting sensibly and in good faith, but it is a matter of judgment for which Ministers must take responsibility as to how far it is justifiable in this admittedly difficult and delicate matter to press precise details of inquiry and whether they are pressed to a point at which they may well become an undue burden.

The following is the questionnaire:

DIRECTORS' EXPENSES AND BENEFITS IN KIND

Information required:—

1. Name of Director.
2. Address of Director.
3. Total expenses paid to each Director.
4. Analysis into: —

(a) rail travel.
(b) subsistence.
(c) entertainment.
(d) any other items.

5. Where Company's car used: —

(a) make, horsepower, cost and date of purchase.
(b) amounts charged in accounts for: —

(i) insurance, tax, repairs.
(ii) petrol and oil.

(c) total annual mileage.
(d) business mileage.

6. Area covered by travel.
7. Number of days on which travelling done.
8. Number of nights spent away from home.
9. Towns visited and number of journeys to each.
10. Purpose of journeys and business done.
11. Number of days spent at Company's offices.
12. Entertainment: —

(a) type of people entertained.
(b) nature of entertainment.
(c)reason for entertainment.

13. If any Company asset has been transferred to a Director, particulars should be given.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA (SITUATION)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether he will make a statement on the military situation in Korea and say in what activities British troops are engaged.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): Both sides in Korea are disposed in accordance with the Armistice Agreement. The Communist strength has remained much the same since the Armistice but the North Korean army is being re-equipped. The main tasks of the Commonwealth Division are to repair and develop their positions and to keep up their standard of training.

Mr. Shinwell: But, in view of the rather more favourable situation in Korea, is it not intended to return some of the men to this country?

Mr. Birch: It is certainly our hope to get our men back from Korea as soon as we can, but that will obviously depend largely on the outcome of the Geneva Conference.

Mr. Shinwell: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether replacements are being sent at the present time, or whether the Government are allowing the Forces to run down without replacements from this country?

Mr. Birch: The order of battle is being maintained at about the same level.

Mr. Shinwell: That is a very vague reply. Can the hon. Gentleman not say whether the Government are refraining from sending replacements?

Mr. Birch: The numbers have not changed significantly.

Mr. Bellenger: Can I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he knows who has re-equipped the North Koreans?

Mr. Birch: We can all make guesses, I think.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).— [The Prime Minister.]

HER MAJESTY'S RETURN FROM HER COMMONWEALTH TOUR

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, assuring Her Majesty, on the occasion of Her return from Her historic Commonwealth Tour, of the loyal and affectionate welcome of this House to Her Majesty and his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh.
Mr. Speaker, there is no duty which the House of Commons could discharge with keener pleasure or deeper conviction than to approve the Motion it now falls to me to move.
When the background of this formidable century rises in our minds with all its struggles and achievements; with all its increases in power and peril, with all its anxieties and unsolved problems, the gleaming episode of the Queen's journey among her peoples, their joy in welcoming her and the impact of her personality upon their vast numbers constitutes an event which stands forth without an equal in our records, and casts a light-clear, calm, gay and benignant upon the whole human scene.
To the people of these islands, for whom we speak in this House, the Sovereign has rendered a service of lasting value—which could have sprung from no other source—a service involving not only tireless exertion but an element of danger—through air travel and other hazards—of which everyone concerned was conscious except herself. Sir, we thank God she is safe home again, and we in the Mother of Parliaments express our gratitude to her and to her husband the Duke of Edinburgh for the work that they have done together, which no one else could do.
Let us survey and salute the service to which our Address of welcome bears testimony. Although we have grown and progressed in many ways since the great Victorian age, a gigantic world has come into being and into contact around us in which, if judged by material tests alone, we have been surpassed. The Queen's journey of nearly six months has reminded all the nations of the message we have brought and of the causes for which we stand.
The Constitutional Monarchy surely founded in the hearts of its people; the Crown the servant not the master of the State; the harmonious reconciliation of the past with the present; the spirit of individual freedom, tolerance, fair play; the capacity at the same time to change and to endure: all these facts and themes have been presented as was never before possible, for all the world to see.
From beginning to end this Royal pilgrimage has reasserted human values, and given a new pre-eminence to the grace and dignity of life. This has not been confined to those who participated in the ceremonies or belong to our wide and varied association. All over the globe there has been a sense of kindly feeling and of generous admiration. Even Envy wore a friendly smile: "How lucky they are to be able to personify the authority and symbolism of the State and combine tradition and modernity in so captivating a way." Indeed, I believe that far beyond her Realms men and women have gained an accession of moral strength and good humour at a time when these virtues were never more needed to help mankind to use their hearts as well as their brains and so find their way through the problems and perils which baffle intellect alone.
Indeed, it may well be that the lively sense of universal brotherhood, and of the bright hopes of the future, may stir in all humanity these qualities which will enable it to control and survive the dread agencies which have fallen into its as yet untutored hands. I assign no limits to the reinforcement which this Royal journey may have brought to the health, the wisdom, the sanity and hopefulness of mankind. And we in the House of Commons welcome the opportunity of putting on record, in the most earnest and solemn manner open to us, our acknowledgment of the memorable benefits which we have received.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: I rise to support, on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House, the Motion which has been so eloquently moved by the Prime Minister. We are speaking here for the House of Commons, and I think that we are all conscious that we are giving voice to the sentiments of the people. I think that Saturday showed a remarkable

demonstration of the people's feelings, and I am quite sure that Her Majesty the Queen must have felt that, having had such a warm reception throughout all parts of her journey, she had come home to find a no less warm one in this country.
I suppose that one could look back over the ages and imagine some stately progress by the rulers of a Realm with all the people looking up in distant awe. How different was this progress. The note that was struck everywhere was the personal, human, friendly note. People saw not only a ruler but a friend. They saw a young and beautiful woman and her husband symbolising the kind of family life that we all love and respect, and I am quite sure that this journey, which at times must have been very burdensome, has done a great service to the people of the British Commonwealth.
There is something in personalities. It is all very well to have a formula or to have a constitution or even a flag, but people want to feel a loyalty and affection towards people and see those people and know those people. I feel that today, as perhaps never before, the people of the Commonwealth feel what is expressed in this Motion for an Address— not only loyalty but affection.

Mr. Clement Davies: It is a privilege to be permitted to support this Motion of welcome. Every Member of the House would like to express our delight at the return of Her Majesty and His Royal Highness.
With full hearts, we acknowledge our deep gratitude to them for undertaking on behalf of all the peoples of the Commonwealth this great journey which, though so happy and giving so much pleasure, was certainly arduous, and must have imposed a heavy strain upon them. We desire to pay our tribute to Her Majesty and His Royal Highness for their ceaseless devotion to duty and for the evidence that each day brings forth of their dedication to the high service of the people.
We acknowledge our recognition of the sacrifice they made in being parted for so long from their children. They are the happy and proud parents of two young children who, in themselves, bring joy to the hearts of millions throughout the Commonwealth, and indeed the world. I honestly and sincerely believe that we of the Commonwealth are, in


our gracious Queen and the Royal Family, the envy of the rest of the world.
We followed Her Majesty and His Royal Highness day by day throughout their triumphant tour We here knew the pleasure they would bring to all, the quick understanding, the happy manner in which they greet all everywhere, at all times and on all occasions. Her Majesty and His Royal Highness are the true ambassadors from the peoples of this old country to the peoples of all the other members of this great Commonwealth— ambassadors of good will, good fellowship and warm friendship. We welcome them home—for home is here—and at the same time express our deep and sincere gratitude.
In expressing our gratitude to Her Majesty and His Royal Highness, may I also be permitted to add our sincere thanks to Her Majesty the Queen Mother and Her Royal Highness the Princess Margaret, who have so nobly undertaken very many and varied heavy duties during the absence of Her Majesty.

Question put, and agreed to nemine contradicente.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, assuring Her Majesty, on the occasion of Her return from Her historic Commonwealth Tour, of the loyal and affectionate welcome of this House to Her Majesty and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (REPAIRS AND RENTS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

3.41 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 2, page 2, line 45; Clause 3, page 4, line 5; Clause 5, page 5, line 45; and of the new Clause (Limitation of liability of trustees, etc., for expenses of local authorities in certain cases) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. James Stuart. —[Mr.]. Stuart.]

Mr. Thomas Fraser: May I ask why it has been proposed that this Bill should be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House? Since it was dealt with by the Scottish Grand Committee, it seems to me that, if it has to be recommitted, it ought to be recommitted to that Committee.

Mr. Speaker: It is quite in order to move the Motion which has been moved, and I shall put it to the House.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Could we have a reply from the Secretary of State for Scotland on this matter?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): I understand that it is necessary to recommit the Bill in connection with the Amendments set out on the Order Paper. The same procedure was followed on a Bill of the same nature relating to England. I was under the impression that this was a perfectly normal procedure.

Mr. James McInnes: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not run away from the point which has been put to him? We all agree that it is necessary to recommit the Bill to a Committee, but the point at issue is whether it should be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House or to the Scottish Grand Committee. We desire to know why the right hon. Gentleman has not suggested that, since the Bill has already been before the Scottish Grand Committee, it should be recommitted in respect of these Clauses to the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: As someone who is not a member of the Scottish Grand Committee, may I point out how very inconvenient it seems that this Bill, which affects Scotland, should be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House instead of to the Scottish Grand Committee, which obviously is much more fitted to deal with it than is a Committee of the whole House. I am sure that you would admit, Mr. Speaker, that it places hon. Members like myself in a difficulty if a Committee of the whole House is to examine a Scottish Bill, and I should have thought that it would have been simpler to deal with it in the Scottish Grand Committee. We have heard nothing from the Secretary of State to justify what seems to me to be a most remarkable, unprecedented and inconvenient procedure.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I wish to support the observations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). It seems quite inconsistent and wrong that this Bill should be taken from one tribunal after being part heard and the hearing continued before another tribunal. It is as if a case in a court of law were partly heard by one learned judge and the rest of the hearing continued before another learned judge. The Scottish Grand Committee has dealt with the Bill up to the present and is fully qualified to deal with it. In my submission, it is not only illogical but entirely wrong to take the Bill from one jurisdiction and present it to another.
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that it is necessary to do this, but he did not explain why it is necessary. Is it being done under any Standing Order, any rule, or under any rule of logic? I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will take this matter in hand and see that it is dealt with in a more logical way and a way more in accordance with reason.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to put two reasons for opposing the Motion which might appeal to the Secretary of State. The first is that this Bill contains many technical phrases and descriptions which English hon. Members do not understand. That also is the opinion of many English Members. I submit that it is a reason why the Bill should be recommitted to the Scottish

Grand Committee. I see the Attorney-General present, but even he, with his vast knowledge of legal matters, would be rather diffident in trying to interpret technical Scottish terms.
The other reason is that this is a day when there should be no party strife. In the atmosphere of the Resolution we have just passed, it would be fitting and appropriate for the House to adjourn. That would be achieved if the Secretary of State would agree to recommit this Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee. The people in all parts of Scotland are loyal constituents; they regard today as a day of rejoicing; but the Government are marring it by this Bill, which is designed to increase rents by 40 per cent. I suggest to the Secretary of State that the noble and generous thing for him to do would be to agree to recommit the Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. J. Stuart: No disrespect is meant or intended to the Scottish Grand Committee. All the Members of that Committee are Members of this House. It would have been possible—indeed it has happened with many Bills—to have taken this Bill in Committee of the whole House. If this Motion were agreed to, we would have a brief stage of recommittal followed by the Report stage and all hon. Members in the House would be entitled to take part in the proceedings. I cannot see that the fact that the Bill is dealt with in Committee of the whole House would exclude any hon. Member from Scotland from taking part in the proceedings.

Mr. Hector McNeil: If that argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman is in any way applicable, it was applicable when the right hon. Gentleman, we think rightly, moved that this Bill be considered in the Scottish Grand Committee. The only reason he gives for following the proposed procedure is that this procedure was adopted in relation to the English Bill.

Mr. John Mackie: May I suggest that this is common form when any Bill has been before a Standing Committee. It does not matter whether it happens to be the Scottish Grand Committee, but in the case of any Bill it is open to the Minister to move the recommittal of the Bill to a Committee of


the whole House. The right hon. Member knows quite well that no Member of the Scottish Grand Committee is thereby debarred from putting a point in which his or her constituents are interested.

Mr. McNeil: The hon. Member is quite wrong—

Mr. Mackie: No, I am not.

Mr. McNeil: If the hon. Member will listen, he will see that he is quite wrong in saying that it is the Minister who recommits a Bill; it is this House which recommits a Bill. This House has already committed an intricate Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee and that Committee, frequently with the help of the Government, has had lengthy and patient discussions on this Bill.
The Bill will have tremendous effects for the Scottish people. Now, because the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) thinks it is common form—the Secretary of State was careful to say it was not common form—and because the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this would be the quickest way of disposing of the Bill—that is the only reason he has in his mind—we are asked to forgo all these complex discussions and to agree to very substantial changes in the Bill which, in the case of the Secretary of State's new Clause, is a very substantial Clause, closely related to the discussion which previously took place. In some part it is designed to meet the wishes of the Opposition, although I regret to say that it does not do so.
The right hon. Gentleman may not have meant to be disrespectful to the Scottish Grand Committee, he may not have meant to be disrespectful to the Scottish people, but the Scottish people will inevitably conclude that this is discourteous to them. Here is an organisation set up by the House, an organisation which has been thought, for most times of the year, most nearly to meet the wishes of the Scottish people and the wishes of the House. Just because the Government are a little short of time, or perhaps because some right hon. Gentleman is a little lacking in judgment, we are now asked, without any apology or explanation to revoke that procedure. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the new Clause and these Amendments would get a much quieter, more reasonable— [Laughter]—if the right hon. and gallant

Gentleman the Under-Secretary thinks that of the Scottish Grand Committee he had better tell his—

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): No, I am laughing at you.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was not laughing at me.

Commander Galbraith: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. I should have said that I was laughing at the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McNeil: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to be entertained by me at any time. I make no complaint if I entertain him, because it is quite plain that he has very little enter tainment in his present political office. But if the right hon. and gallant Gentle man is laughing at my conclusion, which I have offered to the House, that the Scottish Grand Committee would give this matter a more patient and more ex tended consideration, with a better under standing—

Mr. Hector Hughes: More skilled.

Mr. McNeil: Well, let the House judge. Our patience, our ability to discuss things quietly, and sometimes at some length, is well known to everyone, and if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks that that is a weakness in the Scottish Grand Committee, he had better tell his constituents so. They will deal with him very directly upon that point.
It is because we feel so strongly, indeed so passionately, upon this point, that unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give some reason to us and to the Scottish people why he thinks the Scottish Grand Committee is an inappropriate body, or unable or lacking in competence to deal with this matter, we shall have to divide against the Government's Motion, which has been offered to cursorily and with so little explanation.

Mr. William Ross: lam still waiting for the Secretary of State to give some reason why this—

Mr. J. Stuart: The answer is that this is a perfectly normal process, and I shall certainly defend that to my constituents or to anybody else.

Mr. Ross: It is a perfectly normal process coming from a perfectly abnormal


Secretary of State. We were led to believe that we were getting one day, which is very little, for the Report stage and Third Reading, but we now find that most of our time is to be taken up with something which the right hon. Gentleman should have done in Committee. One noted in Committee the right hon. Gentleman's reluctance to deal with Amendments either in the way of accepting or explaining them.
Here we are, at this stage, faced with four or five Amendments plus a complex new Clause, and we are told that they are to be dealt with by a Committee of the whole House. I want to know why the Bill is not to be committed once again to the Scottish Grand Committee. We have had no explanation at all from the Secretary of State, and I hope that we shall vote against the Motion.

Mr. John Rankin: It seems to me that in following this procedure the Secretary of State has broken a promise which, through the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary, he made to me in Committee. If he will look at the proceedings of the sixth sitting in Committee, he will find, as recorded in column 239, that he made a definite promise to reconsider, on Report, the matter which is the subject of an Amendment I have put down to the right hon. Gentleman's proposed Amendment to Clause 2, namely, in line 2, at the end, to insert "without delay." Now we find, when we come to what we understood would be the Report stage, that the Secretary of State is recommitting this Clause, and we find ourselves being asked to deal with it again in Committee. It seems to me that it is violating a distinct understanding which the right hon. Gentleman gave in Committee, and I hope he will have something to say about that matter.

Mr. John Taylor: If we had been given any valid reason for this action it could be understood, and, I think, appreciated and agreed to by hon. Members on this side of the House who sit for Scottish constituencies. If the Secretary of State had argued that the deliberations in the Standing Committee had been unduly protracted, that Members had been guilty of time wasting, there might have been some reason or some excuse for the Motion now before us.
I would remind the House that the comparable Bill for England and Wales was subject to a Guillotine and a timetable. On this Bill we agreed to avoid that unwelcome process, by mutual and sensible consent and arrangement. We took it to Standing Committee, and although the Committee stage was a long one, occupying 24 sittings spread over nine and a half weeks, nevertheless that was permissible and understandable in view of the fact that it is one of the most controversial Measures, indeed the most controversial Scottish Measure, to have come before the House in this Parliament.
We argued the matter out in Committee frankly and fully. I would again remind the Secretary of State that the Closure was formally moved on only six occasions, on four of which it was moved by the Opposition, in fact by myself, because I had cognisance of the arrangement, the tacit understanding, we had agreed upon, and I was anxious that we should adhere to the time-table to which we had agreed. In those circumstances we have co-operated as much as is reasonable on an unreasonable Bill of this description—as we regard it—and at this stage it is wrong that the Government should endeavour to force the Report and Third Reading stages through the whole House, which may involve a lengthy Sitting.
It would be much better for the Bill itself, for the interests of the people of Scotland and the interests and convenience of other Members of the House, if we were to take it in a slightly more leisurely and detailed manner in the proper atmosphere, in these circumstances, of a Standing Committee.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: It must be clear to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and those associated with him who have had all the toil and moil of the preceding stages of the discussion on this Bill, that we are certainly not in agreement with what it is proposed to do today. When one considers that the Secretary of State for Scotland and his advisers at the Scottish Office have had to alter their attitude to the Bill in many respects, there is a case for saying that this stage of the proceedings ought to be continued


in the Scottish Grand Committee. They have had to put many Amendments on the Order Paper, and because of those Amendments, one would assume that the discussion would continue in the Scottish Grand Committee.
I was not able to be present in the Chamber all the time, because of another engagement, but so far as I have heard this discussion, it does not appear to me that the the Secretary of State has justified his course of action today. I heard him say that a similar procedure was adopted with regard to the English Bill, and, accordingly, he thinks that we should accept it for the Scottish Bill. Is that the only argument which the right hon. Gentleman can advance? Are Scottish Members placidly to accept it because the English Bill was hammered through in a certain way? I know the right hon. Gentleman has been in many ways divorced from Scotland and its beliefs for many years, but surely he should recognise that if he pursues the course he is now advocating he will not start the Report stage with the good will of the House.
In the Scottish Grand Committee the right hon. Gentleman enjoyed a large measure of good will. Although we argued keenly, there was no real obstruction, as such, to this Measure. Even the Prime Minister, on one occasion, expressed his satisfaction at the pace at which the discussions were proceeding in the Scottish Grand Committee. I hope the Secretary of State will consider that, and recognise that this protest is a genuine one. We do not like the course we are pursuing. It appears to me that we are inevitably being shoved into an all-night Sitting in order to get Scottish business transacted in a reasonable manner.
Will the Secretary of State tell my hon. and right hon. Friends why he is proposing to take this course? Is it because of shortage of time? Are the Government afraid that they will not get the Bill? Do not the Government wish to risk it again in the Scottish Grand Committee? We had intimate discussions in that Committee which were entered into by hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. They voted for the Government on every occasion and I see that they are with us today. They will not enjoy the same sort of intimate ebb and flow of discussion as occurred in the Scottish Grand Committee.
I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise their complete loyalty during the early stages of our discussions and realise that he is now throwing away so much voting fodder, which I consider to be a disgraceful action on his part. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us a more reasonable and logical argument in favour of pursuing the course he now proposes to take instead of leaving the matter to the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I sat through the meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee and experienced the great difficulty of securing definitions and explanations from the Lord Advocate on various matters. I now wish to ask whether we are to understand that if this Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House we shall have to go through that process again for the benefit of English Members who may have little experience of Scottish law?
Will hon. Members representing English constituencies have to call upon the Lord Advocate time and again for an explanation of the terms used in order that they may be better able to judge the Amendments and the new Clause now on the Order Paper? If that is so, and remembering the great difficulty we had in the Committee in securing fulsome explanations from the Secretary of State, or the Joint Under-Secretaries or—even worse still—from the Lord Advocate, I can forsee tremendous difficulties arising. It took a long time to secure the necessary degree of lucidity for Scottish Members, and if we are to secure the same degree of lucidity for English Members, who may know little or nothing of Scottish law, I am afraid that our discussions will extend until tomorrow mid-day.
I think that it would be a great mistake to accept this Motion. I hope that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies will resist it, and that the Bill will be recommitted to the Scottish Grand Committee. We could then have a Report stage in the House lasting for a day. We came here expecting that to happen, and I think we have been cheated. If hon. Members representing English constituencies are sufficiently interested to arrive at a decision upon these Amendments without full explanations of all the legal implications and effects of


this Bill, I shall be very much surprised. If they do receive such explanations, the Scottish Members will have to sit quiet until all the English Members have been satisfied. We can then go on to debate the Amendments and the new Clause when the English Members feel themselves sufficiently equipped to come to a decision; but I cannot see that happening for a long time.

Mr. J. Stuart: In the hope that the House will then be prepared to proceed, perhaps I had better say that, with the exception of the new Clause, the Amendments on the Order Paper are designed to meet points raised by hon. Members opposite—

Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did the Secretary of State ask your permission to speak?

Mr. Speaker: No, the right hon. Gentleman did not, but assumed that it would be granted. In any case, the right hon. Gentleman has moved a substantive Motion and he has a right to reply.

Mr. Ross: But we have not yet finished with this debate, Sir.

Mr. Stuart: The Amendments are designed to meet points raised by hon. Members opposite. I do not think that any Minister, or anyone who has been a Minister, would wish to recommit a Bill if he could avoid doing so. But it is done in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House. It was not due to a desire on my part to recommit the Bill. I hope that we may make progress and that the House will now agree to proceed.

Mr. David J. Pryde: I am both shocked and disappointed at the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Government Amendments practically give us a new Bill altogether. I have considerable sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman for bringing the matter to the attention of the whole House, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) said in the Scottish Grand Committee, the right hon. Gentleman is like a certain bird which was left during the week-end with the cat. As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said at the Dispatch Box earlier today, there were several "close shaves."
We can visualise that what the Secretary of State wants to bring into play is not the one or two of a majority which was all he was able to scramble together in the Grand Committee; he wants to bring into full play all his manpower in order to take a short cut, like a certain figure in John Bunyan's "The Pilgrim's Progress"—a short cut to the heaven of the landlords. The Paper today tells us sufficient to enable us to say that the people of Scotland would be very pleased if the Government would take back all the Bill and let us start all over again.
It is evident that the Government are afraid to send the Bill back to the Grand Committee. They are asking English, Welsh and Irish Members to discuss something which is particular to Scotland. I suggest that the Government should follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and recommit the Bill to the Grand Committee. We will go into the matter patiently. There is a hoodoo on the Bill, and it is doubtful whether it will become effective even though it be put on the Statute Book by force of votes. I appeal to the Government to give Scotland a fair deal and to send the Bill back to the Grand Committee where it can be discussed in detail.

Mr. Thomas Oswald: I protest on behalf of my constituents, thousands of whom are subject to this thoroughly bad Bill. It has been said that the Government are rushing through legislation with indecent haste. I join with my colleagues in asking the Secretary of State to tell us why the Bill cannot be recommitted to the Grand Committee. It is apparent to the whole country that the Bill was in such bad shape that many Amendments were necessary to make it decent and respectable.
The situation today is that we are presented with new Clauses which it would take us the best part of two days to circumnavigate so that we could discover exactly what are the intentions of the Government. In addition, there are many Amendments in the name of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. Therefore, I suggest to the Secretary of State that he would be well advised to submit the Bill once again to the Scottish Grand Committee to give us an opportunity to


make an attempt to digest the meaning of many of the new phrases which are to be introduced.
When we meet people in Scotland they want to know exactly what this legislation means and what the Government's intentions are. I plead with the Secretary of State to take, for once, some advice from the Opposition and to send the Bill back to the Grand Committee to give us the opportunity to consider the new Amendments so that we can assist the Government to make a bad Bill a little better. It is true that, on many occasions only because the Opposition brought forward good ideas, the Government have been able to put respectable legislation on the Statute Book. We ask the Government to recommit the Bill to the Grand Committee where it may be dealt with by people who understand Scottish legislation.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I wish to support my right hon. and hon. Friends from Scotland in this matter. The new Clause—[Limitation of liability of trustees, &c, for expenses of local authorities in certain cases.]—is something quite beyond the comprehension of an Englishman. If we have to deal with it in Committee of the whole House, without the assurance that it has received the consideration of our Scottish colleagues, I must say that we shall take some time. I consulted my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) about two of the words in the Clause. I regret to say that he told me that while I pronounced one of them correctly as an Englishman, that was not the way in which a Scot would pronounce it.
There is a reference to "tutor" and to what I call "curator." They are people who, apparently, in Scotland in some way or other receive rents or are responsible for the receipt of rents. In view of my interpretation of the word "tutor," I should have liked to be able to consult the Educational Institute of Scotland to ascertain whether this is another way of imposing extraneous duties on members of the teaching profession—a matter which is greatly resented. I have not yet been able to get to the Scottish pronunciation of the word, but as far as "curator" is concerned I always thought that he was a person who looked after a museum, at any rate in England.
This is, clearly, one of those pieces of legislation which was purposely brought before us in two separate Bills because of the difference of wording that Englishmen and Scotsmen employ in their legal enactments. We are now to forgo the whole of the advantage of having this new Clause first considered by our Scottish colleagues. When I am told that this is a normal process, I would say that, after all, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) was the first Secretary of State for Scotland to act under the revised Standing Orders of the House which referred Bills for their Second Reading or Committee stage to the Scottish Grand Committee.
I should have thought that, after the experience we are having today, it would be worth while considering whether the normal procedure ought not to be that when a Bill has been to the Scottish Grand Committee it should go back there if it has to be recommitted, so that we could have a clean Bill which had been considered by Scottish Members, aided by a few Members from England and Northern Ireland. We could have the assurance that the Bill had received their attention and was at least the result of collective Scottish views. I sincerely hope that the course suggested will be followed.

Mr. Charles Pannell: I wish to support what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). The English Bill was referred to a Standing Committee. Despite the fact that many questions were asked—there was little filibustering, or none at all—when we got the Measure back to the Floor of the House we had to have a Guillotine to get rid of legislation that was ill-digested, ill-conceived and ill-considered upstairs.
The Measure with which we are dealing today is a purely Scottish Bill which employs Scottish legal terms. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) is faced with many difficulties. He is a man of Welsh origin who became domiciled in Birmingham and was then chosen to represent a Scottish constituency. I understand that my hon. Friend almost had to learn the alphabet all over again. In order to represent the people of East Dunbartonshire, my hon. Friend felt it necessary for him to go and live in the constituency,


and for him to have to live in that constituency is a very great hardship.
If the Government do not take the line suggested by the Opposition, they are making lobby-fodder for the English Members. The English Members really cannot take an intelligent part in the debate. If they offer any observations, they will merely give away the fact that they know nothing about the subject, or else they will have had briefs handed to them by Scotsmen who want them to filibuster. The English Members will be kept here to do no more than walk into the Lobbies to vote in Divisions on subjects about which they know nothing. We do not want that type of consideration given to a matter on the Floor of the House. The subject ought to have the leisurely, well-informed consideration which is given to Bills in Standing Committees.
I wonder whether the action which is being taken by the Government today might not be taken as a precedent in the case of the Town and Country Planning Bill which is now being considered by Standing Committee C. I am wondering whether, when the English Members on the Standing Committee have finished their deliberations on the Bill, Scottish hon. Members may not be reduced to lobby-fodder in the House on further proceedings of that Bill.
If there is anything at all in having a Scottish Standing Committee, and if it can be intelligently used—I sometimes have reason to doubt it—it seems to me that this is the sort of matter which should be considered by the Scottish Standing Committee and that the Committee stage ought not to be taken on the Floor of the House. I do not know whether there is a constitutional point in what I have said. There is, at any rate, a strong political point in that any method which would enable Scotsmen to mind their own business would be popular among other hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Gordon Walker: As an English Member representing an English constituency, I have been unimpressed by the arguments so far used by the Secretary of State. All that he has said is that it is normal to do what he is proposing to do. I do not know enough about these things to know whether it is

normal or not, but I have formed the impression from the debate that it ought not to be normal to do what he is proposing to do. It is in conflict with the spirit of the Standing Order which set up the Standing Committee, and if it has been normal in the past, it should cease to be normal from now on. The whole purpose of the Standing Order is that Scotsmen should discuss their own business among themselves in their own curious jargon. At all events, it is curious jargon to Englishmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen.

Commander Galbraith: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect the Standing Order of which he is speaking? If he did, he might change his mind. It requires only 10 hon. Members to stand in their places and object in order to stop a Bill going to a Standing Committee. Therefore, what is all this talk about the sacrosanct manner in which Scottish Measures should be dealt with?

Mr. McNeil: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House of any occasion on which 10 hon. Members have stood to oppose the Second Reading of a Scottish Bill being remitted to the Standing Committee?

Commander Galbraith: Am I not correct in thinking that the Opposition recently objected to another Bill going upstairs and insisted on its being taken on the Floor of the House? Does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) remember that? If he does, will he be good enough to apologise for the statement which he has made?

Mr. McNeil: We were then dealing, as we are now, with a Committee stage.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I am sorry to intervene between two Scotsmen, but this is just the sort of thing that ought to be going on in the Scottish Standing Committee. I have not understood any of it; it has been a very good example to prove that these things are much better settled in Standing Committee.
The Government really ought to spare hon. Members in a position such as I am from having to make decisions in the course of the proceedings on this Bill on matters which, unless they are explained to us at very great length, we shall not be able to understand. After all, non-Scottish Members are a majority of the


House and our views ought to be regarded. The Government's proposal places a very grave imposition upon us and upon the Government. The Government will have to explain these things to us at considerable length, translating them all into the corresponding English legal terms.

Mr. William Hamilton: The Secretary of State for Scotland anticipated that he would get the Motion through without any discussion. What has happened during the last hour ought to warn him about what will happen between now and breakfast time tomorrow.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) expressed some alarm about the pronunciation and meaning of certain words in Scotland and in England. I anticipate that in the course of the debate my right hon. Friend will ask for an explanation not of sentences or phrases but of words. We have all had experience of the Lord Advocate explaining things to us in the Scottish Standing Committee. Goodness knows what will happen when he tries to explain to English, Welsh and Northern Irish hon. Members the meaning of a word in Scotland compared with its meaning in England. We shall be no further forward after his explanation.
I should have thought that the Government would have been a little sensitive to the results of the local elections. This Measure is of interest to Scotland and to nobody else. We have machinery designed for the specific purpose of sending legislation of this nature to the Scottish Standing Committee, and yet we have the Government flying in the face of that machinery, deliberately determined to organise its English, Northern Irish and Welsh manpower to force through the House a Bill which is of no conceivable interest to those hon. Members.
It is going too far for the Secretary of State to expect the Opposition meekly to accept what he has proposed. I frankly warn him that if he is determined to pursue this course he can be prepared for a very long sitting indeed, because our Welsh and Irish colleagues, no less than our English colleagues, are going to be very meticulous and will insist upon having every word, phrase, sentence and paragraph explained to them in full and in detail.

Mr. T. Fraser: Lest the House be in fluenced by the remarks made by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scot land when he interrupted my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) I should like to make the point clear. The reference was to Standing Order No. 60, under which a Bill may be referred to the Scottish Standing Committee for consideration in relation to the principle of the Bill—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will tell me if I am wrong, but I believe that he has already spoken to the Motion.

Mr. Fraser: If you so rule, Mr. Speaker, I must, of course, resume my seat, but when I first rose I merely asked a question. I do not know whether that is regarded as a speech. I think the OFFICIAL REPORT will show that my remarks were confined to asking the right hon. Gentleman why this Bill had been referred to a Committee of the whole House, but if that is a speech, I must not make the remarks that I wanted to make.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Technically, of course, it is a speech, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman, with the leave of the House, could make the point he wishes to put.

Mr. Fraser: May I ask the leave of the House to deal with a small point, which I regard as important, which was made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary? If I have that leave, may I say that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman pulled up my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) by saying that there was a Standing Order under which, if 10 hon. Members of the House rose in their places in objection, a Bill would not be referred to the Scottish Standing Committee. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was referring to Standing Order No. 60.
I do not want to weary the House by reading the Standing Order, but the position under it is that a Bill which has received a certificate from you, Mr. Speaker, certifying that it relates specifically and exclusively to Scotland, may be referred to the Scottish Standing Committee for consideration in relation to the principle of the Bill. Then the Bill will come back here, the Second Reading will be taken formally by the House on a


Motion moved by the Government, and the House can then divide upon the Second Reading.
That Standing Order was introduced on the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), with the consent of the Opposition of those days, and agreed by the House, because it was considered desirable that, when we have a non-controversial and purely Scottish Measure, we should be able to have a discussion, on what is really the Second Reading stage of the Bill, by Scottish hon. Members, and should not weary the House with it at that stage. It always was the intention that, where there was a controversial Measure which related exclusively to Scotland, it should have its Second Reading here on the Floor of the House.
The Bill about which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said the Opposition had objected to its going to the Scottish

Standing Committee was the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, which was seen to be a controversial and a major Measure. We said that we regarded it as a controversial and major Measure, and wanted to debate it on Second Reading on the Floor of the House and divide upon it. It was because of that fact that a Motion which had been put down by the Government without consulting the Opposition was later withdrawn by the Government. In the circumstances, I hope the House will not be unduly influenced by the intervention of the Joint Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Edward Heath (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 196.

Division No. 95.]
AYES
[4.35 p.m.


Alport, C. J. M.
Crouch, R. F.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finohley)
Hornsby-Smith, Mist M. P.


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Horobin, I. M.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florense


Arbulhnol, John
Davidson, Viscountess
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Deedes, W. F.
Howard, Hon. Groville (St. Ives)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hurd, A. R.


Banks, Col. C.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. MCA
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)


Barlow, Sir John
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Baxter, A. B.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Iremonger, T. L.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Johnson, Erio (Blackley)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Finlay, Graeme
Kerby, Capt. H. B


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Fisher, Nigel
Kerr, H. W.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Lambert, Hon. G


Birch, Nigel
Flelcher-Cooke, C.
Lambton, Viscount


Bishop, F. P.
Fort, R.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Black, C. W.
Foster, John
Legge-Bourke, Mai. E. A. H.


Boothby, Sir R. J. C.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lindsay, Martin


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Brooman-White, R. C.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lucas, Sir Jooelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Glover, O.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Godber, J. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bullard, D. G.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
McAddon, S. J.


Burden, F. F. A.
Gough, C. F. H.
McCorquodaie, Rt. Hon. M. S


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Gower, H. R.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Campbell, Sir David
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Carr, Robert
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maclean, Fitzroy


Gary, Sir Robert
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W)
Hay, John
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Cole, Norman
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Marples, A. E.


Colegate, W. A.
Heath, Edward
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmis)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maude, Angus


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maudling, R.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr S. L C


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Holland-Martin, C. J
Mcdlicotl, Brig. F


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F. C
Hope, Lord John
Mellor, Sir John




Molson, A. H. E.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Studholme, H. G.


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Renton, D. L. M.
Summers, G. S.


Moore, Sir Thomas
Ridsdale, J. E.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Neave, Airey
Robertson, Sir David
Teeling, W.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon.. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Roper, Sir Harold
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Nugent, G. Ft. H.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Oakshott, H. D.
Russell. R. S.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D
Touche, Sir Gordon


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Turner, H, F. L.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Turton, R. H.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Scott, R. Donald
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weslon-super-Mare)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Page, R. G.
Shepherd, William
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Peake, Rt. Hon. 0.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Vosper, D. F.


Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Wall, P. H. B.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Snadden, W. McN.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Pilkington, Capt. R A
Soames, Capt. C.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Pitman, I. J.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Watkinson, H. A.


Pitt, Miss E. M.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Wellwood, W.


Powell, J. Enoch
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L
Stevens, G. P.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Profumo, J. D.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Wills, G.


Raikes, Sir Victor
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ramsden, J. E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.



Rayner, Brig. R.
Storey, S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Redmayne, M.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Mr. Robert Allan and Mr. Legh.


Rees-Davies, W
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W


Albu, A. H.
Finch, H. J.
King, Dr. H. M.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Kinley, J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Follick, M.
Lawson, G. M.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Foot, M. M.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lewis, Arthur


Bacon, Miss Alice
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lindgren, G. S.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Gooch, E. G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Logan, D. G.


Bence, C. R.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
MacColl, J. E.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mclnnes, J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Grey, C. F.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McLeavy, F.


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Blyton, w. R
Grimond, J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Bowden, H. W
Hale, Leslie
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bowen, E. R.
Halt, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Coine Valley)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Bowles, F. G.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Manuel, A. C.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hamilton, W. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hannan, W
Mason, Roy


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hargreaves, A.
Mellish, R. J


Burke, W. A.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Messer, Sir F.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hastings, S.
Mikardo, Ian


Callaghan, L. J.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Mitchison, G. R


Carmichael, J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Moody, A. S


Champion, A. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Morgan, Dr. H, B. W.


Chapman, W. D.
Hobson, C. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Chetwynd, G. R
Holman, P.
Moyle, A.


Clunie, J.
Holmes, Horace
Murray, J. D.


Coldrick, W.
Holt, A. F.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Collick, P. H.
Houghton, Douglas
Oliver, G. H.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hoy, J. H.
Oswald, T.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hudson, James (Eating, N.)
Padley, W. E.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Daines, P.
Hynd, H. (Aocrington)
Parmell, Charles


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hynd J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pargiter, G. A


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Parker, J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hen G A.
Parkin, B. T.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Janner, B.
Pearson, A.


Deer, G.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Delargy, H. J.
Jenkins, R. H. (Steohford)
Popplewell, E.


Dodds, N. N.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwioh)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Proctor, W. T.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Pryde, D. J.


Edelman, M.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Jones, T. W (Merioneth)
Rankin, John


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Keenan, W
Reeves, J.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Kenyon, C.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)







Reid, William (Camlachie)
Sparks, J. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Steele, T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Willey, F. T.


Ross, William
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, David (Neath)


Royle, C.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Short, E. W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Willis, E. G


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Tomney, F.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Usborne, H. C.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Skeffington, A. M.
Viant, S. P.
Wyatt, W. L.


Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Warbey, W. N.
Yates, V. F.


Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford G.)



Snow, J. w.
Weitzman, D
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor.

Question put accordingly.

The House divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 202.

Division No. 96.]
AYES
[4.42 p.m.


Alport, C. J. M.
Fisher, Nigel
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R F
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fletcher-Cooke, C
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Fort, R.
Maclean, Filzroy


Arbuthnot, John
Foster, John
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Assheton, RL Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T D (Pollok)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Banks, Col. C.
Galbraith, T. G. 0. (Hillhead)
Marples, A. E


Barlow, Sir John
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Baxter, A. B.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G Lloyd
Maude, Angus


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Glover, D.
Maudling, R.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Godber, J.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col A
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Gough, C. F. H.
Mellor, Sir John


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Gower, H. R.
Molson, A. H. E.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Birch, Nigel
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Bishop, F. P
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Black, C. W.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Neave, Airey


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Hay, John
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H
Heath, Edward
Oakshott, H. D.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G T
Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr. Capt. L. P. S.


Bullard, D. G.
Holland-Martin, C J
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Burden, F. F. A.
Hope, Lord John
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon Henry
Page, R. G.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Campbell, Sir David
Horobin, I. M.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Carr, Robert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Peyton, J. W. W.


Cary, Sir Robert
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pitman, I. J.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L
Hurd, A. R.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Cote, Norman
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Colegate, W. A.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Iremonger, T. L.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Profumo, J. O.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Craddock, Beresford (Speltnorne)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Ramsden, J. E.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Kerby, Capt. H, B
Rayner, Brig. R


Crouch, R. F.
Kerr, H. W.
Redmayne, M.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchiey)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Rees-Davies, W. R


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lambton, Viscount
Remnant, Hon. P


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Renton, D. L. M


Davidson, Viscountess
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Deedes, W. F.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lindsay, Martin
Robertson, Sir David


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Limstead, Sir H. N.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Roper, Sir Harold


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Russell, R. S.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McAdden, S. J.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Finlay, Graeme
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Savory, Prof Sir Douglas




Scott, R. Donald
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Vosper, D. F.


Shepherd, William
Studholme, H. G.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Summers, G. S.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marytebone)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Sutclifle, Sir Harold
Wall, P. H. B.


Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Ward, Miss* I. (Tynemouth)


Snadden, W. McN.
Teeling, W.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Soames, Capt. C.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Watkimson, H. A.


Spearman, A. C. M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wellwood, W.


Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Spans, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Williams, Paul (Sunder land, S.)


Stanley, Capl. Hon. Richard
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Stevens, G. P.
Touche, Sir Gordon
Wills, Gerald


Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Turner, H. F. L.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Turton, R. H.



Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Storey, S.
Vane, W. M. F.
Mr. Robert Allan and Mr. Legli.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moyre, A.


Albu, A. H,
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Murray, J. D.


Alten, Arthur (Bosworth)
Grimond, J.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)
Hale, Leslie
Oliver, G. H.


Anderson, Frank (Wihitehaven)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oswald, T.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Padley, W. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hamilton, W. W
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Hannan, W.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Hargreaves, A.
Pannell, Charles


Bence, C. R.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Hastings, S.
Parker, J.


Benson, G.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Parkin, B. T.


Bing, G. H. C.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Pearson, A.


Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Miss M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Blenkinsop, A.
Hobson, C. R.
Popplewell, E.


Blyton, W. R.
Holman, P,
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bowden, H. W.
Holmes, Horace
Proctor, W. T.


Bowen, E. R.
Holt, A. F.
Pryde, D. J.


Bowies, F. G.
Houghton, Douglas
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hoy, J. H.
Rankin, John


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hudson, James (Eating, N.)
Reeves, J.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Burke, W. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Callaghan, L. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon),


Cermichael, J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.)


Champion, A. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Chapman, W. D.
Janner, B.
Ross, William


Chetwynd, G R.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Royle, C.


Clunie, J.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Shinwsll, Rt. Hon. E.


Coidriok, W.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Short, E. W.


Collick, P. H.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Crossman, R. H. S
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Keenan, W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Dines, P.
Kenyon, C.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
King, Dr. H. M.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Kinley, J.
Snow, J. W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lawson, G. M.
Sparks, J. A


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Steele, T.


Deer, G.
Lewis, Arthur
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Delargy, H. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Dodds, N. N.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Logan, D. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Ede, Rt Hon. J. C
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edelman, M.
Mclnnes. J.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McLeavy, F.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Tomney, F.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lyrnn


Finch, H. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Usborne, H. C.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Viant, S. P.


Follick, M.
Manuel, A. C.
Warbey, W. N.


Foot, M. M.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Forman, J. C.
Mason, Roy
Weitzman, D.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mellisti, R. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Messer, Sir F.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Gooch, E. G.
Mikardo, Ian
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mitchison, G. R
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Moody, A. S
Wigg, George


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Wihcock, Group Capt. CAB


Grey. C. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (Lewisham, S)
Willey. F T







Williams, David (Neath)
Willis, E. G.
Wyatl, W. L.


Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huylon)
Yales, V. F.


Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'M'y)
Winlerboltom, Richard (Brightside)



Williatm, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Woodburn, Rl. Hon. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 2.—(POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORI TIES TO RETAIN FOR TEMPORARY OCCUPATION CERTAIN HOUSES IN CLEARANCE AREAS.)

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 45, to leave out the first "may" and to insert:
where the demolition such a building is so postponed, shall.
It might be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, we take that in the name of the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin)—in line 2, at end, insert "without delay" —and the three in the name of my right hon. Friend one in page 2, line 45, and the others in page 4, line 5. I suggest that all the Amendments form one part.

The Chairman: That is quite true, but before we can take the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Tradeston we must first take that part of the Amendment of the Secretary of State which is to leave out the first "may."

Mr. Rankin: Further to that, Sir Charles, during the Committee stage—on which, I understand, we are still engaged —the Amendment to which my name and that of other of my hon. Friends is subscribed was dealt with on its own. I fail to see why, after special consideration was promised, it should now be linked up with other Amendments not directly related to it.

The Chairman: The hon. Member put down as an Amendment to the Amendment in line 2, at the end to insert "without delay."

Mr. Manuel: The point of my hon. Friend's remarks is that he objects to the suggestion made by the Joint Undersecretary that all the Amendments on page 2611 of the Order Paper shall be taken together, and you, Sir Charles, have suggested that we deal with the second Amendment, after dealing with the first part of the first Amendment.

The Chairman: The Amendment of the Secretary of State is first to leave out "may" and then to insert some words. The hon. Member for Tradeston cannot move his Amendment to the proposed Amendment until we have dealt with the Amendment to leave out the first "may."

Mr. Hector Hughes: These Amendments deal with different things. The first two deal with whether, at the end of Clause 2, the wording should be mandatory or permissive and the second Amendment deals with whether there should or should not be delay—whether the postponement should be a long or a short postponement. They are two different things. I understand that the proposition before the Committee at the moment is that all these five Amendments should be taken together, but, the third Amendment—in page 2, line 45, after the second "may," to insert, "in the opinion of the authority" deals with an entirely different question. It deals with the question of whether the Secretary of State should or should not be of a certain opinion.
There would be some ground for taking the two Amendments in page 4, line 5, together. They are on the point of whether it should be mandatory or permissive and they are of the same form. My respectful submission is that, the Amendment standing in the name of the Secretary of State in page 2, line 45 and that in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), in line 2, are two separate and distinct things. The third Amendment is separate and distinct from both of them. I therefore submit that in logic and in common sense the three should be so taken that the arguments relevant to each of those three different topics can be adduced separately and Divisions, if necessary, taken on them separately.

Mr. Mclnnes: I hope that the Committee will accept the Ruling you have given, Sir Charles. Before dealing with the other Amendments, we must dispose of the first. The others hinge on the acceptance or rejection of the Amendment in the name of She Secretary of State.

The Chairman: I think that the hon. Member did not state what I said. The


Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Tradeston is to add words at the end of the Amendment in the name of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State's Amendment is a double one. It seeks to leave out a word and then to insert words. Before we can proceed to put words in we must deal with the first part of the Amendment, which is to leave out a word.

Commander Galbraith: The Government Amendment is put down in implementation of an undertaking which I gave in the Standing Committee to see what could be done to strengthen the wording of this particular subsection. Its purpose is to make it clear that there is a definite obligation on local authorities to carry out such patching work as may from time to time be required.

Mr. Rankin: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end, to insert "without delay."
The point of this Amendment led to some discussion earlier in Standing Committee. It did so because we on this side of the Committee are considerably worried about the effects of this Clause, which governs those areas which are designated clearance areas but in which, for one reason or another, the local authority may decide to retain a particular dwelling house. Those of us who are familiar with these circumstances know that many of these dwelling houses are in a very serious state of disrepair, and because they may be retained in use for at least 15 years, and in some cases for even longer, we want to ensure that they will be put into a good condition from the point of view of tenantability.
5.0 p.m.
For that reason, in the Standing Committee I moved that the works to be carried out on a house to put it into a good state of repair should be carried out without delay. The Government promised to consider the matter and see what they could do to strengthen the Cause. They have gone one-third of the way. I suggested that the words to be added should be "shall without delay." The Government gave serious consideration to the matter and decided to adopt the word "shall," but not the words "without delay." They have, as I say, gone one-third of the road with me. [Interruption.] I shall deal with the words

"without delay" in due course, if the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) will give me time. We have lots of time. The whole of the evening and perhaps the whole morning still lie in front of us. I have only reached the word "shall."
I wonder why, when the Government set out in my company, they left me after they had gone a third of the way. I do not know what the Joint Under-Secretary of State was thinking about. He was in good company, and I think he might have continued with me. This is an important Amendment to an important Clause, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman having started to accompany me, I do not want him to be distracted at any point of the journey by the Lord Advocate with whom he is conversing.
Now I come to the reason why I should like the words "without delay" incorporated in the proposed Amendment. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has strengthened the Clause to some extent, but I think that the omission of the words "without delay" creates a serious weakening of the action that the local authority may be able to take. On both sides of the Committee we agree that these houses must be dealt with, but it is quite clear that they will not be dealt with by the great housebuilding firms, who will be building new houses. This type of work will be relegated to the jobbing contractors.

Mr. E, G. Willis: And the direct labour departments.

Mr. Rankin: My hon. Friend suggests that the direct labour departments might be able to deal with this work, but the trouble is that the direct labour departments are not a common feature of all local authorities. The progressive authorities, and particularly those under the control of Labour, have got direct labour departments, but it is not a common feature in all local authority administration, and, therefore, we cannot really depend upon it. In any event, I should hope that all those local authorities which have direct labour departments will be engaged in the construction of new houses.
I think that, in practice, we shall find that this sort of work will be handed


over to the jobbing contractors, and the possibility is that if what we hope for still materialises, these jobbing contractors will have a great deal of work to do. Indeed, there is a danger that they may have too much work to do. Let me give an example. During our earlier Committee proceedings I referred to a dwelling in my constituency which comes within an area that will be redeveloped. Like many other buildings, this one is in an extreme state of disrepair. The job of putting it into habitable condition was given to a local jobbing contractor.
That was well over 12 months ago, and yet nothing has been done. The tenants are to suffer inconvenience and distress resulting from living in these conditions, and have to wait until a small tradesman finds the time to do the repairs. The local authority may be anxious enough to get ahead with the work. In many cases the owner of the property may be anxious to get ahead with the work, but the jobbing tradesman to whom the work is given may find it difficult to cope with all the jobs which have been assigned to him.
It is for that reason that I wish to see "without delay" incorporated in the Government Amendment. The inclusion of those words would bring to the attention of all concerned the continuing urgency of this job of rehabilitation. The danger is that after the job has been contracted out nothing further will result for quite a long time, whereas, if the Bill is fortified by the addition of the words "without delay" it will be possible to produce speedier action in the admittedly necessary rehabilitation of these areas. I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary agrees that this work should not be held up, as it may be if the Bill contains merely permissive powers and not an obligation to see that the work is done without delay.

Mr. Manuel: The Committee must recognise that this is a very important Amendment. Although the Secretary of State has gone a little way towards meeting our wishes the position is still woefully weak. We are dealing with slum houses which are still being inhabited by families and children of tender years, and we are discussing whether or not we

should leave out the words "without delay."
I hope we shall take the matter a little further, because all the slums and unfit houses are not to be found in the huge aggregations of housing developments of the past in and around our big cities. I can take the Joint Under-Secretary to rural slums which are a disgrace to the countryside. Local authorities have listed many such dwelling for demolition in the future, but we know that although they have been so listed local authorities cannot put a closing and demolition order upon them because they are not building enough houses to rehouse those who have to live in them.

Commander Galbraitta: If the hon. Member will look at the Bill—

Mr. Manuel: I have.

Commander Galbraith: —he will see that the words "without delay" will apply to local authorities carrying out the works, and not demolishing the buildings.

Mr. Manuel: If the right hon. and gallant Member will himself look at the Bill he will find that we are dealing with houses which local authorities want to demolish but which have to be kept in being for a further period because of the lack of accommodation. We are being very tender to the Government when we talk about these houses remaining in being merely for another 15 years, because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that in Glasgow literally thousands of such houses will be occupied for an even longer period. He must recognise that if a house is due to be demolished but has to be kept in being for a further 15 years it is bound to need repair. It is literally a case of life and death to the families occupying these slums, and it is surely not too much to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to agree to the insertion of these two words.
5.15 p.m.
As I pointed out in the Standing Committee, if a child, born as this Bill becomes law, leaves school at 15 years of age, it will have spent the whole of its formative school and pre-school life in this horrible type of dwelling, and will have been subjected to the possibility of contracting tuberculosis and kindred


diseases. Any Member of the House who approaches this question on its merits should agree that if a local authority decides that although a house ought to be demolished it shall be kept in being for a further 15 years, it ought to take the further decision that it will bring that house into as habitable a condition as possible without delay.
That is all the Amendment asks for. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for once more bringing this issue forward, because it is of special importance. I do not think that there is any more important provision which can be put into the Bill. The families living in these houses deserve our help, and if every Scottish Member is going to do his best for those of his constituents who have to live in these dwellings he should be helping us to get the Amendment accepted. I hope that we shall not be subjected to what we had to stand during the 24 sittings in Committee.
I then described this as a life and death issue, but while we were explaining to the Committee how our constituents were suffering we were not able to induce any hon. Member opposite to speak. I know that some hon. Members feel that it is not their job to submit a case when their Government are in power. They are so loyal that they regard it as their duty to get Bills steam-rollered through. It is as if they had taken some Trappist vow—

The Chairman: This argument has very little to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Manuel: I am sorry, Sir Charles. I hope that we shall hear something on this subject from hon. Members opposite without delay.
Housing, especially this type of housing, almost literally drove me into public life, and it will drive the Government out of power, if not out of public life, if they do nothing about it. It is no smiling matter to the people who have to live in these slums. I hope that the Government will feel as sincere as I do in this matter and will accept the Amendment, in order to show local authorities that we are seized with the idea that if they decide to keep these houses in being they shall, without delay, do all the patching up work they possibly can to give the tenants a better chance of a better existence during the next 15 years.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The question is whether the legislation should in this respect be mandatory or permissive. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) in saying that it would be an advantage to this deliberative Assembly if the speeches on the other side were not mandatory but permissive, and if more hon. Members on the Government side would give the Committee the benefit of their—

The Chairman: I stopped the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) from pursuing that line just now, and I hope the hon. and learned Member will not pursue it.

Mr. Hughes: May I just finish my sentence, Sir Charles?
I was going to say, the benefit of their wisdom, if any, in our consideration of the proposed Amendment and the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. I support both, though I could not support the Amendment by itself. With the Amendment by itself the Clause would become mandatory, and might force a local authority to postpone the demolition of poor, old decrepit houses and to attempt to patch up houses not capable of being patched up. That would be likely to happen. It is not a matter of a quid pro quo. It is a matter of common sense that if the legislation is to give this mandatory power it should put the local authority upon terms to exercise the mandatory power without delay.
It is the common case that this queer subsection requires amendment. One reads it twice and one sees that is so. It is a subsection of 16 lines but one sentence, and, therefore, it requires careful reading to see what it means and whether it is of real benefit or not. One thing is certain, that the Government's proposed Amendment itself will not improve the subsection. It requires our Amendment to it if it is to make the subsection really useful.
The subsection gives power to local authorities to retain for temporary accommodation certain houses in clearance areas. It has very objectionable features, which are concentrated in the last four lines, and it is to those four lines that the proposed Amendment, and the Amendment to the Amendment are directed. It relates to the carrying out of certain works. The Government agree


that the carrying out should be mandatory and not permissive.
I do not want to trouble the Committee by reading the Clause, but I should like to refer, for the sake of clarity to the essential words:
Notwithstanding"—

The Chairman: I think this speech is directed to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," rather than to the Amendment.

Mr. Hughes: I bow to your Ruling, Sir Charles, but if you will allow me to finish my argument I think you will see that it is directed not to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but to the Amendment and the Amendment to the Amendment. I would quote the beginning words:
Notwithstanding anything …
in certain circumstances—
… a local authority by whom an area has been declared … to be a clearance area… may postpone for such period as may be determined by the authority the demolition of any building on land purchased by or belonging to the authority within that area …
I quote those words to show that without the words "without delay" there may be excessive delay which will defeat the whole purpose of the Clause.
Therefore, I hope the Government will see the force of our case and accept these two words. After all, they are only two little words, and I hope the Government will accept these two little words to make the Clause reasonable as it ought to be.

Mr. Thomas Steele: The people affected by the Clause, and the proposed Amendment and the Amendment to the Amendment, are people who must be the concern of all Members of the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) made such a powerful plea for them that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) was so interested that I could see him leaping to his feet in support. I welcome, therefore, the Amendment proposed by the Government which, I think, is in answer to the pleas made in Standing Committee.
Hon. Members on both sides appreciate the circumstances in which these people live, and every one of us can tell harrowing tales of the conditions of life

in those houses. I am reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) that the Joint Under-Secretary of State himself can do so, and I remember a powerful description by the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) of the conditions of constituents of his.
We must approach this matter with care and attention, and we must bear in mind that the local authorities will be reluctant to take these houses over. Many of them have no desire to take them over, and the powers contained in the Bill may not be sufficient to ensure that the Government's own intentions are carried out. It will be recalled that I put this to the Government in Standing Committee. In view of that, we welcome the Government's intention to insert "shall" in the Clause.
5.30 p.m.
I urge the Government to consider the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) to add the two words "without delay." It is not merely a question of asking the Government to insert these words. We want to give the people of Scotland a feeling that something will be done, and will be done without delay. The Government have accepted the responsibility of the Bill and of these proposals. In fact, they talk about "Operation Rescue." We argued earlier in Committee that having accepted responsibility, the Government ought to accept financial responsibility also, and we urged that the burden should not fall upon the local authorities.
The Government rejected that plea. They said, in effect, that their financial responsibility would be determined by the Bill; but the financial responsibility of local authorities is simply an unknown quantity. There is all the more reason, therefore, that the Government should accept our Amendment to emphasise that it anything is to be done, it should be done without delay.
The Government say, and the Bill states, that these provisions are for a temporary period. That is why we want the inclusion of "without delay." I am a little suspicious of the word "temporary" in this connection. Constituents of mine are living in temporary accommodation that was built after the 1914–18 war. Quite recently, the Lanarkshire County Council agreed to give certain tenants a reduction in rent in the houses


in which they were living, because those houses were Army huts during the 1914–18 war. The people are still living in them, and because the tenants have looked after them so well the county council thought that they were entitled to a reduction in rent. That was temporary accommodation.
I am also suspicious of the word "temporary," because in the Civil Service it can mean a long time; it might even mean a lifetime. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has some knowledge of this and, no doubt, will give the Committee more information than I am prepared to do. Furthermore, the approach of the Government and of the civil servants who advise them to the word "temporary" is very doubtful. We have heard of temporary civil servants—they are always temporary, and never get established.
It seems to me that this temporary accommodation will be in use for a long time and we ought to ensure that if something is to be done to make it habitable, it ought to be done without delay. I am sure that the Government will listen to the pleas put up from this side of the Committee and will insert these two words as showing that they are really honest and sincere in their intentions.

Mr. Willis: I support the proposed Amendment to the Secretary of State's Amendment. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, but it does not go far enough, and I think we ought to include the words "without delay." I venture to take part in the debate asking for the inclusion of these words, because in Edinburgh there are at present nearly 10,000 houses in a condition which would bring them within the provisions of the Bill. Obviously, if the whole of the town council's building resources were put to the replacement of these houses, they could not be replaced very quickly. Therefore, most of the houses will come within the provisions of the Clause.
It is only right that we should declare the priority that we think some houses should get, because there is likely to be great pressure on building materials. The Government are trying to expand their programme of house building, both by

local authorities and by private builders. At the same time, we are told that Part II of the Bill will result in an enormous amount of repair work being done. If it does not, the Bill is meaningless.
With these great demands upon our building resources, surely we ought to declare that these houses should have a certain priority. We can only say that by including the words "without delay." We ought to give to the local authorities an indication that in our opinion the people living in these houses deserve to be treated much earlier than some of the other people who will make a call upon the country's building resources.
I suppose that if we were asked the question in our constituencies, we would reply that the people living in these areas were deserving of first call upon the nation's building resources. That being so, we ought to include the words "without delay." We would then make it quite clear to the local authorities, who will be responsible for this work, that the job must be got on with. It cannot be delayed because a local authority is building its own houses or other people are utilising the building resources for the purposes set out in Part II or for a variety of other purposes, such as building garages and the like. I hope that the Secretary of State will give the Amendment favourable consideration and will decide to accept it.

Mr. McInnes: My hon. Friends on this side of the Committee have made their contributions to the debate with a deep sense of sincerity and in their belief that these two simple words are essential to the Bill. Our Amendment, except for the word "shall," which the right hon. Gentleman has conceded to us, is the Amendment which we moved in the Standing Committee. The right hon. Gentleman undertook on that occasion to consider it further, and it was on that understanding that we withdrew our Amendment.
We have spent almost 45 minutes discussing the two simple, innocuous words "without delay" and whether they should be inserted in the Clause. I must express very strong resentment at the filibustering of the Government on their own Bill. These 45 minutes could well have been saved had a Member of the Government indicated why these two words. could not be accepted.
It is strange that on a previous Amendment the Government should find it necessary on a vital matter of procedure to move the Closure but should allow discussion on these two words and continue their filibustering tactics for almost an hour. I am astonished at the Government's attitude. I hope that no attempt will be made during the rest of this evening's proceedings to move the Closure because of any attempt at filibustering from this side.
We have seen this afternoon the most outstanding example of filibustering that I have ever seen in the House. Neither the Secretary of State, the Joint Undersecretary, the Lord Advocate nor any Member of the Government Front Bench has thought fit to intercede on a very simple proposition of this kind. I shall listen with pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman trying to explain why the Government cannot accept these two simple words.
What is it we are asking for, and why is it we want these words inserted? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has a wealth of local government experience, as have most of my hon. Friends. It is essential and desirable that these words should be inserted because there is a variety of local authorities. There are reactionary local authorities, progressive local authorities, and those which are prepared to take the middle course. To safeguard ourselves against local authorities of such variety we ask that whatever may happen the tenants who are being compelled to remain in these houses ought not to suffer and that is why we are saying that the local authorities should proceed without delay to carry out such works.
It is in the interests of the tenants that the work should be proceeded with without delay. It has to be remembered that we are dealing with slums in clearance areas, and but for this Bill the local authorities would have demolished them without delay. In the process they would provide a proper standard of accommodation for the tenants. This Bill suggests that where local authorities have already declared an area to be a clearance area the houses on it shall be retained for a period of 15 years, and in the process they should be patched up and made as comfortable as possible.
Surely the Government cannot object to our asking for the patching process to be carried out without delay. I shall listen with interest to discover why the Government have been so docile and why so silent on this subject. Why have they allowed the Committee to discuss this simple matter for almost an hour without a reply from the Government? I hope that the Secretary of State will take advantage of the opportunity now open to him to let us know.

Commander Galbraith: I am rather surprised at the remarks with which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) opened his speech, because if he had taken the trouble to listen to what I said on Second Reading—

Mr. McInnes: Listen? I read it.

Commander Galbraith: I meant in the Standing Committee. If he had referred to the report of the proceedings of the Committee, he would have seen that I gave my reasons why, in my opinion, the Government could not accept the words "without delay." The column is 239 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and the date is Thursday, 25th February last. The reason I gave then was that there would be a great number of these houses to be attended to and, therefore, it was quite impossible for them all to be attended to without delay. The thing is not physically possible.

Mr. Manuel: rose—

Commander Galbraith: If the hon. Gentleman will sit down for one moment, I will give way when I have finished this part of my argument. It would be impossible for all these houses to be dealt with at one and the same time.

Mr. Manuel: We are not asking for that.

Commander Galbraith: I also pointed out that it was a grave reflection on the local authorities, and that reflection would be even greater now. I am astounded at the number of hon. Members opposite who call themselves good local authority men who now come forward with the suggestion that the local authorities, having a duty imposed upon them by the word "shall," would delay for one moment to carry out what is physically possible.

Mr. Manuel: I am grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way, but he must recognise that we on this side do not agree that all local authorities are good local authorities. The main point with which I want to deal is this. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying that the local authority, if it is not actually doing physical work, would not meet the purpose of our Amendment, but the purpose of our Amendment will be met if a local authority is taking action to get the physical work begun on these dwellings as soon as possible. We all know that a lot of administrative duties have to be performed before the actual work begins, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that, as well as any of us.

5.45 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I have pointed out the weaknesses of the Amendment. The first weakness is that it is physically impossible to carry out the work and the other is that this suggestion is a grave reflection on the local authorities. I made it perfectly plain during the Committee stage why I could not accept that part of the Amendment, and I went on to say that it was the wish of the Government that this Clause should be as strong as possible and that we would consider strengthening it. I see the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) is still here, and perhaps he will bear me out when I repeat the words I used then:
I cannot promise that any wording we may find will meet the hon. Gentleman's wishes 100 per cent…"—(OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 25th February, 1954, c. 239.]
The Government have met it at least to the extent of 33⅓ per cent., which is a fairly good dividend in these days.

Mr. McNeil: The Committee is grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Government for the admittedly small way they went to meet us and to meet the situation. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman offered two criticisms of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin). I think he will agree on reflection that neither of the criticisms is valid. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that our Amendment is a reflection upon local authorities. That comes a little odd from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seeing that he is a

member of a Government which has taken away from the local authorities all powers on the subject of this Bill. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman seems a little disturbed about that.

Commander Galbraith: I think that is pretty good coming from the right hon. Gentleman who was a member of a Government which took away from the control of local authorities such things as electricity, gas and transport, and also the administration of hospitals.

The Chairman: I think this debate is going quite beyond the Amendment.

Mr. McNeil: I should be delighted to reply to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but you have ruled, Sir Charles, that I cannot at this moment give the answers to his absurdities. I shall confine myself to the Amendment and give the answers on that subject.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman accused my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston of not properly considering the prestige of the local authorities. He said that this Amendment cast a great reflection upon them, but we should not forget that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate said during the Committee proceedings, as recorded in column 214, that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could not give an undertaking that he would not use his powers to prevent local authorities pulling down the slum houses which they wanted to pull down. The right hon. Gentleman seems a little perplexed. I do not wonder. It is a most extraordinarily arrogant statement. I am sorry that he does not remember it.

Mr. J. Stuart: rose—

Dr. H. Morgan: The right hon. Gentleman must not get excited; he did say it.

Mr. McNeil: It is to be found at column 214 and, if the right hon. Gentleman will listen to my argument, he will learn that the Government said to the local authority, "No, we shall decide which buildings you will be permitted to tear down." Falling inside that category are these properties which we are considering, and to which this Amendment is directed.
I suggest to you, Sir Charles, that it is odd for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the local authorities are not competent enough, not wise enough, not responsible enough to decide what buildings shall be allowed to stand; that we in our wisdom, having taken that decision, are to allow the local authorities to patch the buildings which we have forced them to acquire when the local authorities may have wanted to pull them down. If there is any reflection on the prestige of the local authorities, it is not conveyed by this Amendment but is conveyed by the cavalier fashion in which the right hon. Gentleman is forced to address him-self whenever he is carrying a landlord's brief, as he is at this stage.
The second point is that the right hon. Gentleman said that it would be impossible to expect the local authorities to carry out all these repairs at once. If that were the only interpretation of the Amendment, then my hon. Friend and myself, and every responsible person on this side of the Committee, would instantly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. But that is not what the Amendment says. It says in the simplest words we could use, and to which the right hon. Gentleman did not take objection in Committee, "Without delay." That does not mean immediately and simultaneously. If that is all that is worrying the right hon. Gentleman, he has the Lord Advocate to find a suitable form of words, which could be embodied in another place, to the effect that the local authorities shall be expected to do these things without delay but not all at once.
In moving this Amendment, my hon. Friend pointed out that there was this conflict between a limited building industry. We know that. We do not ask the local authorities to jeopardise their new housing programme by committing all their resources to repair these miserable buildings which they wanted to tear down. But we do not want to see the other part of the resources in a community devoted to buildings which could wait a little longer in the programme than these crumbling, miserable, unsanitary slums which the Government are forcing Scottish tenants to occupy.

Commander Galbraith: Does the right hon. Gentleman really say that the Gov-

ernment are forcing tenants to go on living in unsanitary buildings? Is that really his interpretation?

Mr. McNeil: That is my interpretation of the words to which I have already drawn attention and which I begged the Government in Committee to let go. I asked the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate to say that the Secretary of State would in no circumstances seek power or use power to prevent local authorities from pulling down slums which they wanted to pull down, and therefore to let people escape from these dreadful buildings. So that there is no ambiguity, this is what the Lord Advocate said:
It would all depend on the circumstances. It is for that reason that the Secretary of State is anxious to maintain the power to modify, or not to modify, the proposals made."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 23 rd February, 1954; c. 214.]
The proposals relate to what buildings local authorities shall be forced to prop up instead of to tear down. Therefore my argument stands on the words of the Government. The Secretary of State, in all his power and compassion, will force Scottish people to live in houses which a local authority would want to tear down.
The right hon. Gentleman sits there muttering and spitting. I can understand his embarrassment and shame, but the answer is easy. If, as I believe, the right hon. Gentleman is utterly ashamed in his heart of these appalling powers, the remedy is available, but as long as the powers remain in the Bill, as long as those words of the Lord Advocate are there to read, this Committee and the Scottish people will know that this is how the Secretary of State is misusing the great powers of his office.

Sir William Darling: Very synthetic.

Mr. McNeil: The hon. Gentleman can find refuge in such phrases as "very synthetic "—

Sir W. Darling: I was referring to the indignation of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McNeil: I concede to the hon. Gentleman that frequently in debate both sides overstate the case, and I am no exception, but the hon. Gentleman knows this to be true, that there is no hon. Member of this Committee on either side


who can be otherwise than ashamed of the depths to which the Secretary of State has dropped in obtaining these powers. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene?

Sir W. Darling: Yes. The right hon. Gentleman did not see his hon. Friends behind him. If I may say so, the smirks on their faces agreed with my view that his indignation was very synthetic.

Hon. Members: Not at all.

Mr. McNeil: My hon. Friends are too close to these slums, and too many come from these slums, ever to smirk about them. I go on to make the related point. If the right hon. Gentleman is determined that he will retain the powers to order these things, and if, therefore, he places this burden alike upon the local authorities and upon the tenants, then surely it is reasonable that those tenants should be asked to carry no longer than is necessary the appalling discomfort and the actual threat to their health which many of these buildings impose.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that it is a temporary Measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) dealt with that point. We have all seen such buildings and dwellings. The hon. Member for Ruther-glen (Mr. Brooman-White), who no doubt will vote with us when we divide on this Amendment, drew the attention of the Government to temporary dwellings in his own area. We have all been partner to such mistakes and, knowing that, when we are given an opportunity of making certain that the mistake does not recur, that the misery is not revisited on people for a period of at least 15 years, perhaps indefinitely, surely we should take care, in terms of the local authority and in terms of the tenant, that the work is carried out without delay.
The right hon. Gentleman said that this was a reflection on local authorities. I confess that there are some local authorities whose eagerness to operate such powers to repair are doubtful. They are reactionary local authorities. You and I, Sir Charles, will be delighted that there are fewer of them today than there were a week ago, but, while any reactionary authorities remain, the Secretary of State must have power to deal with them.
6.0 p.m.
Perhaps we have not the right words. Perhaps the Amendment conveys the impression that it would be mandatory upon all local authorities to proceed at once, immediately and altogether. If there is any risk of that, by all means let us find another form of words and let the Government undertake that the Lord Advocate shall find it.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I thought that the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White) would have taken the opportunity to say a word or two on the Amendment. That is why we suggested a little earlier that we might have had the opinions of hon. Members opposite. I certainly think that in the old days of the Labour Government the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) would have been only too ready to express his-views, and I am sorry that we have missed his contributions to this debate. However, we shall have to do without them. I hope that he will be changing his place to this side of the Chamber soon and will be ready to speak again in our debates.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen supported my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) in Standing Committee, when he spoke about the hutted camps in his constituency and wanted to know from the Secretary of State if the adoption of an Amendment meant that the huts would be pushed further back in the building list. I agree that he has some reason for thinking that that may happen, because I remember very old huts in the city of Edinburgh of the kind to which the hon. Member referred. They were used first as Army huts and then shifted from one part of the town to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr, Willis). There they stayed as eyesores for many years, with people attempting to prop up the floors so that they might live in them. These were cleared away just before the outbreak of the Second World War. We see, therefore, that the word "temporary" might mean anything at all.
Apparently the hon. Member for Rutherglen is not ready to make his contribution to this debate, and perhaps he would not object if I said a word on behalf of the people who live in these huts. I am sure that it will be agreed


that it is well worth while the Committee spending some time in considering the position of these unfortunate people. I am rather surprised that the Joint Under-Secretary of State took the line that he followed this afternoon. Our debate was free, frank and friendly until he addressed the Committee. He certainly moved from the line which he took on a similar Amendment in Standing Committee, because then he went out of his way to pay a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston for his great co-operation in helping to achieve the smooth passage of the Bill through the Committee stage.

Mr. R. Brooman-White: If the hon. Member is moving from the subject of the hutted camps, I should like to intervene to say that, having made my point in Committee upstairs, I saw no great merit in repeating it this afternoon. But I am pursuing my studies in the art of repetition throughout this debate.

Mr. Hoy: I find that a little too naïve because, when he spoke in Committee upstairs, the hon. Member received no reply from the Government and we went on to the next Amendment. I am certain that if that is the line which the hon. Member proposes to take and that is all the sincerity that he places behind his argument, he was not entitled to a reply. One would have thought that if he had meant what he said he would have been present earlier in this Committee today to put his case and to ask for a reply from the Government.

Mr. Brooman-White: First, I was in the Chamber and, secondly, the hon. Member seems to subscribe to the doctrine in "Alice in Wonderland" which laid down that what was said three times was true. I stated this once only, which I consider sufficient to establish its veracity.

Mr. Hoy: That is a terribly poor excuse for the hon. Member to make. I saw him arrive and stand outside the Bar of the Committee a few minutes ago. I should have thought that when we started to discuss the Amendment he would have been here two hours ago, not to lead the attack, but to find out exactly what the Government are prepared to do. Apparently, he had no intention of contributing to the debate, because he did not come into the Committee to do so. I am sorry that the hon. Member should not be

delighted with the assistance that I render to him, for while I use examples from his constituency, I know that there are many others throughout the country.

Mr. Steele: Is my hon. Friend aware that:
Rug'len's wee roon red lums no longer reek briskly"?

Mr. Hoy: It is true, as the Joint Undersecretary realises, that all this will cause considerable expense to the local authorities. We have to face that. The Government's White Paper stated that it was hoped that it would not place an unduly heavy burden upon local authorities. The Joint Under-Secretary should say more on this subject. We appreciate that where there are hundreds of houses one cannot expect local authorities to start repairing each house straight away. That could not be done, but if the people who occupy these houses are to go on occupying them they must have some assistance in making the houses decent. We do not like the Bill at all, but if we must have it, let us make the houses decent without delay.

Mr. Ross: The Joint Under-Secretary suggested that this job was physically impossible, that there were a great many houses to be attended to and that he could not ask the local authorities to get on with that job without delay. That will be a great consolation to the local authorities, but the people whom we are considering are the people who live in the houses. Let us recollect what kind of houses they are. They are at present subject to demolition orders. They are fit only for demolition in the eyes of the local authorities.
The Secretary of State referred in an earlier Amendment to
where the demolition of such a building is so postponed, …
to make it clear to which houses this argument of physical impossibility is applied, but what about the physical strain on the people who are living in these houses?
I know some of these houses in my own area and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) where mothers are finding it a physical impossibility to cope with things for very much longer. Does that physical impossibility not have any effect at all upon the Secretary of State or the Joint Under-Secretary?
The Joint Under-Secretary says that building resources are limited. Would it not be better to limit the effect of the Clause to those houses for which building resources are available to enable us to get on with them right away? It is the Secretary of State who is compelling local authorities to carry out this policy, whether they like it or not. To tell them how they shall cope with their housing problem—how many they shall take and everything else—and then not to pay some slight attention to the tenants who are affected, is not really good enough. What we are staging here is "Operation rescue "—rescue of the Government.

Mr. Hoy: "Rescue the perishing"?

Mr. Ross: Yes, rescue the perishing landlords. But the Government and their supporters throughout the country have been saying that this Clause, and what they hope will come out of it, would lead to better housing conditions for people living in slums. They have been salving their consciences by this happy phrase and saying that it will do so much for the people in the slums. Yet here they are leaving a loophole whereby nothing will be done for an unlimited time.
The other objection the right hon. and gallant Gentleman made is that we should be interfering with the responsibilities of local authorities by laying it down that they should do this work by a certain time but that we should leave it to their discretion. I can understand his touchiness when he addressed those remarks to the Committee and why he was slightly irritated and angry. That was because it was the second time he has made this speech. He made the same speech on Thursday of last week in Edinburgh to the Unionist Party conference which was dealing with the subject of housing. The conference had a series of motions and resolutions all asking the Government to tell local authorities what to do about housing and rents. The right hon. Gentleman suggested to the conference that it should be left to the discretion of the local authorities, but the Tory conference in Scotland turned down the Joint Under-Secretary of State. Does he expect us to listen to him when he makes the same plea, dealing with an entirely different matter, a matter which materially affects the living conditions of people in slums?
Once again the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is entertained. The thought of people living in these slums, having been taken over by the local authorities and the local authority allowed a loophole whereby it does not require even to patch up the slums, is not something which should be the subject of laughter, even on the Treasury Bench. I sincerely hope that back benchers opposite will realise that they have certain responsibilities in this matter. We are only raising it again because the Government saw the force of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) on the original Committee stage; but they have not gone nearly far enough.
I think it absolutely shameful that this Government should condemn people to go on living in houses which are ready for demolition and to leave a loophole whereby a local authority, having taken over, need not do the slightest thing to make houses fit to continue as housing accommodation. If the Government do not accept the Amendment, will they accept some advice and just clear out?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Bence: I did not intend to intervene, but, having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I am very worried about the implications of this Clause. I may not have heard him aright, but I understood him to say—and I hope the Secretary of State will give us an answer, because I at least want an answer—that the Secretary of State has power to modify a scheme submitted by a local authority.
Presuming that a local authority submits a scheme to the Secretary of State in which it proposes to patch up 100 houses, is the Secretary of State to say, "You shall demolish 90 and patch up only 10 because, in the Scottish Office, we know that there is not sufficient labour and material to patch them all"? Or, will he say, "No, you cannot take over the whole 100, but, as we can only repair without delay about 10, you must demolish the other 90 and build 90 new ones"? Will he not do that? Is it suggested that the Secretary of State, in using his power to modify a scheme, would say that, notwithstanding the fact that there is no raw material nor labour to do the job, and there may not be for three years, the local authority is to take


over the whole 100 and repair only 10, leaving the other 90?
If that is the situation under this Bill, I am surprised, as I never thought it was so. I thought the idea of modifying was that if a local authority put in a scheme to take over 100 houses the Secretary of State would survey the situation and say, "We cannot allow this because in any reasonable time 10 only can be patched and we shall have to modify the scheme. Ninety must be demolished and 90 new houses built." Will the Secretary of State say that the local authority should take over the whole 100, although it may be nine years before they can be patched and people will have to continue living in them?
I was under the impression that when the local authority took over the houses they would be patched straight away, but now I gather the authority can take over the lot, whether they can be patched or not. If that is the case, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) is quite right. The Government deliberately, through the powers taken by the Secretary of State to modify a scheme without any consideration of capacity to repair in a reasonable time, are condemning people to live in slum conditions for many years in houses which should be demolished. I hope that before we pass from the Amendment the Secretary of State will give an assurance that he will not give any local authority powers to take over a house which is scheduled to be demolished, unless it can be repaired in a very short time.

Mr. Rankin: For nearly two hours the Government have been compelled to listen to a series of persuasive arguments to show that this rehabilitation of unfit houses is a job which should be carried out, and carried out without delay. That is the important aspect which we are seeking to impress on the Government. There is real danger if, while we agree that these conditions shall be remedied, there is no indication whatever as to what time limit is to operate. That makes the insertion of the words, "without delay" imperative.
I shall not repeat anything that has been said from this side of the Committee in the last two hours. I wish to make an appeal to the Secretary of State and to

the Joint Under-Secretary. During the Committee stage the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary used these words, in replying to me:
I appreciate what is in the hon. Gentleman's mind.
That is, he understood what I was saying; he admits it in the words which I have quoted from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings, so that there is no doubt as to the background against which he made that statement. I was saying that this work should be proceeded with without delay, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary understood that. He went further. He committed the Secretary of State, because he went on to say that what I was saying in moving my Amendment
coincides with the desires of my right hon. Friend."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 25th February, 1954; c. 239.]
So we now know the position of the Government Front Bench. They understood what I was saying, and what I was saying coincided with the desires of the Secretary of State for Scotland. If that is the case, why has the right hon. Gentleman not put his desires into words? Why does he halt after he has gone a third of the way with us? Why does he not come the whole way and put his own desires into legislative form?
It may be that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) said, that the Secretary of State's desires —which were exactly the same as ours— are not properly embodied in the words which we have selected. In view of our failure, because of our lack of draftsmanship aid, etc.—we have not the machinery available to us—I pass the ball to the right hon. Gentleman and ask him to put those desires, which coincide with ours, into a properly drafted form.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that he wants the thing we want. Then why does he not do it? He has the power. If he really wants the thing we want, I ask him not to turn down this Amendment to his proposed Amendment today, but to reconsider the matter, and bring forward, on Report stage, a form of words which will enable him to do the thing which we want done, and, at the same time, the thing that he himself has admitted is his desire also. I make that plea to him now.

Question put, "That those words be there added to the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 224.

Division No 97.
AYES
[6.24 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Hannan, W.
Parker, J.


Adams, Richard
Hargreaves, A.
Pearson, A.


Albu, A. H.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hastings, S.
Popplewell, E.


Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)
Hayman, F. H.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Anderson, Frank (Wnitehaven)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Proctor, W. T


Awbery, S. S.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pryde, D. J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hobson, C. R.
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Holman, P.
Rankin, John


Berne, C. R.
Holmes, Horace
Reeves, J.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Houghton, Douglas
Reid, Thomas (Switidon)


Benson, G.
Hoy, J H.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blenkinsop, A
Hughes Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Blyton, W. R.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Bowden, H. W
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Ross, WilIiam


Bowles, F. G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Royle, C.


Brockway, A. F.
Janner, B.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T
Short, E. W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Shurmer, P. L. E


Brown, Thomas (Inca)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Burke, W. A.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Skeffinglon, A. M.


Carmichael, J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Champion, A. J
Jones, T. W (Merioneth)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Chapman, W D.
Keenan, W
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S)


Clunie, J.
Kenyon, C
Snow, J. W.


Coldrick, W
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Sorensen, R. W.


Collick, P. H
King, Dr H. M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank


Craddock, George (Bradford, S)
Kinley, J.
Steele, T.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Lawson, G. M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Crossman, R. H. S
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lewis, Arthur
Sylvester, G. O


Daines, P.
Lindgren, G. S.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mripeth)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Logan, D. G.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
MacColl J. E.
Thomson, George (Dun lee E.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McGovern, J
Timmons, J


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Molnnes, J.
Tomney, F.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Deer, G.
McLeavy, F.
Usborne, H. C.


Delargy, H. J.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H
Viant, S. P.


Dodds, N. N.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Warbey, W. N


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Webb, Fit. Hon. M. (Bradford, C)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Manuel, A. C
Wells, Percy (Favsrsham)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Marquand, Rt Hon H. A
West, D. G.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mason, Roy
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mellish, R. J
White, Henry (Derbyshire N.E.)


Follick, M.
Messer, Sir F
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Foot, M. M.
Mitchison, G. R
Wigg, George


Forman, J. C.
Moody, A. S.
Wilcock, Group Capt. CAB


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morgan, Dr. H B. W
Willey, F T


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Moyle, A.
Williams, David (Neath)


Gibson, C. W.
Mulley, F. W
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Gooch, E. G.
Murray, J. D.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R
Oliver. G. H
Willis, E. G


Grey, C. F.
Oswald, T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Padley, W. E.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hale, Leslie
Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)
Wyatt, W. L


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Coine Valley)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Yates, V. F.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Pannell, Charles



Ham lion, W. W
Pargiter, G. A
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor.




NOES


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Astor Hon. J. J
Sell, Philip (Bolton, E.)


Alport, C. J. M,
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J M
Bennett, F. M (Reading, N.)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Baldwin, A. E.
Bennett, William (Woodside)


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Banks, Col, C.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J-
Barlow, Sir John
Bishop, F P


Arbuthnot, John
Baxter, A. B.
Black, C. W


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Beach, Maj. Hicks
Boothby. Sir R J G




Bowen, E. R.
Horobin, I. M.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt Hon. J A
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L


Boyle, Sir Edward
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Profumo, J. D.


Bromley-Davenport, LI -Col. W H
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Ramsden, J. E.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hurd, A. R
Rayner, Brig. R.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Redmayne, M.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Ho P G T
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bullard, D. G.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Renton, D. L. M.


Campbell, Sir David
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Carr, Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Robertson, Sir David


Channon, H.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool. S.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Kerby, Capt, H. B.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
KERR. W.
Roper, Sir Harold


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cole, Norman
Lambton, Viscount
Russell, R. S.


Colegate, W. A.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Scott, R. Donald


Craddoek, Beresford (Spirltnorne)
Lindsay, Martin
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Crouch, R. F.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Shepherd, William


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip - Northwood)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Deedes, W. F.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Snadden, W. McN.


Digby, S. Wingfietd
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Soames, Capt. C


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McAdden, S. J.
Spearman, A. C. M


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Spence, H. R. (Abe-deenshire, W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
McKibbin, A. J.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, Weil)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stevens, G. P.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W)


Finlay, Graeme
Maclean, Fitzroy
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fisher, Nigel
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Fleetwood-Mesketh, R. F
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Storey, S.


Fletoher-Cooke, C
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S)


Fort, R.
Manningham-Bulter, Sir R. E.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Foster, John
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Studholmte, H. G


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Marples, A. E.
Summers, G. S.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Maude, Angus
Sutcliffa, Sir Harold


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Maudling, R.
Taylor, Sir Chrrles (Eastbourne')


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Testing, W.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Modlicott, Brig. F.
Thomas, Leslie (Cantarbury)


Glover, D.
Mellor, Sir John
Thomas, P. J. M. (Corrway)


Godber, J. B.
Molson, A. H. E.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Moore, Sir Thomas
Touche, Sir Gordon


Gough, C. F. H.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Turner, H. F. L.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Neave, Airey
Turton, R. H.


Grimond, J.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Vane, W M. F


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Vaughan-Morgan, J K


Harris, Frederic -(Croydon, N.)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Oakshott H. D.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marvlebone)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Maoclesfield)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Wall, P. H. B.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hay, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N)
Wellwood, W


Heath, Edward
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E)


Henderson, John (Calhoart)
Page, R. G.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
WilIiams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Wills, Gerald


Hirst, Geoffrey
Peyton, J. W. W.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Holland-Martin, C. J
Pickthorn, K. W. M.



Holt, A. F.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A



Hope, Lord John
Pitman, I. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Mr. Vosper and


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Powell, J. Enoch
Mr. Richard Thompson.

Proposed words there inserted.

Commander Galbraifh: I beg to move, in page 2, line 45, after the second "may," to insert,
in the opinion of the authority.
I think it would be convenient to discuss this Amendment together with the next two Amendments, in Clause 3, page 4, line 5, to leave out first "may," and

insert "shall," and after second "may" insert,
in the opinion of the authority.
The Amendment which I have proposed does to Clause 2 exactly what the two following Amendments do to Clause 3. It is in that relation that I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss the three Amendments together.

The Chairman: I think that would be convenient.

Commander Galbrairh: It would perhaps be helpful if I were to read the Clause, starting at line 45, as the words will appear if these Amendments are inserted:
… and where the demolition of such a building is so postponed, shall carry out such works as may "—
and then we are putting in the words:
in the opinion of the authority from time to time be required …
As I said when moving the previous Amendment in Standing Committee, hon. Members opposite pressed us to strengthen these Clauses, and that is what we have done. We have now made it mandatory on local authorities to go ahead with works which they think are required from time to time. I hope that will meet with the approval of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Douglas Johnston: I appreciate what has been said by the Joint Under-Secretary of State, but I think that the effect of introducing the words:
in the opinion of the authority
destroys the effect of the word "shall," which we have already inserted. As the Clause stood originally, it was permissive, but the introduction of the word "shall" made it mandatory. The introduction of these proposed words makes it mandatory only if in the opinion of the authority, it is proper that it should carry out those mandatory instructions. I suggest, therefore that what we have previously inserted will be destroyed by what it is proposed now to insert.
If I may put the problem in another way: by the introduction of the word "shall" we made it possible for the courts of law to determine whether or not a local authority had carried out the duty thrust upon it by this Clause by examining what work the local authority had done. But if we insert the words:
in the opinion of the authority
the courts will have to determine whether, in the opinion of the authority, the work should be done, which is quite a different question. In effect, this is turning an objective examination into a subjective one. I am sure that is not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman or the Government, and I suggest

that they withdraw their proposed Amendments to insert those words. There is of course, no objection to the other Amendment. In fact we welcome it.

Mr. Steele: Surely the Government should show more courtesy to the House in this matter. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) has put a legal point to the Committee and where legal matters are in dispute we should have the presence of the Lord Advocate. He has been present on many occasions during our discussions this afternoon, but at the very moment when a legal point is advanced he disappears. There seems to me to be something discourteous about that. I am not sure whether a Motion to adjourn the House until we find the Lord Advocate would be in order, but at least we should have an answer to the point put by my hon. and learned Friend. The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White) said that he had no intention of having any serious repetition; but we on this side get the same reply to our inquiries today as he got in the Scottish Standing Committee.

Mr. T. Fraser: None at all.

Mr. Steele: He got no reply. We press for a reply today. I am glad to note that the Lord Advocate has returned. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley put a point which requires legal elucidation. We argued for some time whether the word "shall" should be inserted. The point is that, in the view of my hon. and learned Friend, after the insertion of the word "shall" to which we have agreed, the Amendment now proposed would limit and nullify our earlier action.
I wish to give the Lord Advocate time to consider the matter. When he has considered it, I hope that he will be prepared to answer. I see that the Joint Under-Secretary is prepared to spring to his feet to give us an interim reply and I wait to hear it with some interest.

Commander Galbraith: Of course we have considered the point. In the opinion of the Government these words are necessary, because the local authority must be resonsible for what repairs are to be done. The local authority is composed of people who will know how long they intend to retain the house, and therefore


the extent of repairs which should be undertaken and everything else in relation to the building concerned.
I remind the Committee that it is the ratepayers' money that is involved, and in that respect the local authority is the responsible body. Though there may have been some legal argument put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I wonder how many tenants of a house which has become a local authority house will take the local authority to court. I wonder whether that is a practical proposition. In any case, the answer is that we have considered the point but that we feel the words are absolutely necessary for the reasons which I have given.

Mr. D. Johnston: I hate to be repetitive, but I must say that the reply given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not satisfy me—except that it satisfies me that he has not understood the point. I explained that the introduction of the word "shall" gave my hon. and right hon. Friends the impression that this was intended to be an imperative Clause. Indeed, I understood that that was what the Joint Under-Secretary said; but I now understand him to say that, while introducing the words in response to our invitation, he has deliberately modified the imperative "shall" by the introduction of these words.
6.45 p.m.
In my opinion—and I am subject to correction by the Lord Advocate—the introduction of the words, "in the opinion of the authority," gives effect to the word "shall" as if it were "may." Indeed, there is no difference between "may in the opinion of the authority," and, "shall in the opinion of the authority." I had explained that the test, if one left the word "shall," was objective, but with the Amendment the test is now subjective. If the word "shall" had stood alone, then in my opinion it would have been possible to go to court and to compel a local authority to show that it had carried out the work. With the Amendment that will be impossible. It will only be possible to go to the court to test the matter in this way: the court will ask itself, "Has the local authority, in the opinion of the local authority, carried out the work?" That is a

different matter. I hope that now that the Lord Advocate has considered the matter we may have further elucidation.
The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. L. Clyde):I hesitate to rise, because my intervention may merely prolong a debate which seems to have arisen out of a misconception.

Mr. Bence: Confuse it, not prolong it.

The Lord Advocate: It may well confuse it as well. That depends on the capacity of those listening to understand what I am about to say.
In our view a local authority must be responsible for deciding what works are required. It is absolutely essential to put into the Clause the words, "in the opinion of the authority." It is the authority, and the authority alone, which should be master of the situation on the question of what is required. That is why the words are suggested, but once the local authority has made up its mind what work is required then we put an obligation upon it to carry out the work. Therefore, we use not the word "may" but the word "shall." I have put the point as clearly as I can, though it may not be intelligible to everybody.

Mr. Ross: Surely if we put in the words, "in the opinion of the authority" that means that the local authority cannot be challenged on anything that it does or does not do. If a local authority decides to do nothing in a case where a house requires something to be done to it, I can raise the matter in the House because as a result of the first Amendment there is a statutory duty on the local authority to do something. I can raise the matter with the Secretary of State and he can challenge the local authority for not having carried out the statute.
The statute, as a result of the first Amendment which we accepted, will make it clear that the local authority has to do something or the tenant can challenge it in the court. However, if we insert the words proposed now, we can be met with the reply from the Secretary of State for Scotland that the matter has been left to the local authority. If in their opinion nothing is to be done, whether that opinion is justified or not, and they decide that nothing is to be done, then the tenant has no come-back and Members of Parliament have no means of


ensuring that the spirit of the Clause is put into operation.
The Lord Advocate has now made it perfectly clear that the Government are prepared to leave with the local authorities such a power as will override their own pious hopes that something should be done for the tenants. Is it the case that the local authority is able to do anything, and then, as a result of the words proposed to be inserted, nothing can be done about it despite the feeling of the tenant, the feeling of, probably, a minority of the town council and even the feeling of Members of Parliament? If that is the case, the Joint Under-Secretary is being less than open and frank with the Committee. He has changed "may" to "shall" as we wished, but he then seeks to negative that Amendment by inserting the proposed words.

Mr. Hoy: In the 1949 Act we gave the local authorities permission to determine the grants which should be given for the repair or modernisation of homes. This point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) earlier during the Committee stage on this Bill. One local authority gave a full grant of 50 per cent, to all the applicants except a co-operative society, which made a similar application for a similar purpose but received a grant of only 25 per cent. The decision of the local authority could not be challenged.
Under the Clause as it is sought to amend it, it would appear that if a local authority decides that it will do nothing to a certain house, its opinion cannot be challenged. It would appear that there would be no power in the hands even of the Secretary of State to deal with a recalcitrant local authority, that even Parliament would have no power and that hon. Members would be unable to make complaints through the Secretary of State. I should be pleased to hear from the Lord Advocate whether or not the interpretation which I place on the Amendment is correct.

Mr. T. Fraser: Might we have an answer? No one in the Committee knows where the Government stand in this matter. The Government themselves appear not to know.
We have asked that "shall" shall be substituted for "may." We have, therefore, said that, as Members of Parliament,

we require that local authorities shall carry out certain works on houses which have been classified as unfit and are already liable for demolition. When Parliament says that a local authority or any other person shall do certain things and the local authority or other person does not do so, Parliament usually possesses a default power and can require the local authority or other person to do what has been laid down. No spokesman for the Government has told us whether the Secretary of State will be able to exercise such power.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) has called attention to the way the subsection will read if the proposed words are inserted, and has rightly suggested to the Committee that, if the local authority is to be the judge as to whether work is necessary to keep a house in a habitable state, it is nonsense for the Committee to write "shall" into the same line of the subsection. The Joint Under-Secretary and the Lord Advocate have spoken, but neither has really tried to shed any light on the matter. We are still entirely in the dark. The local authorities will also be left in the dark. Perhaps the Government wish it to be so. I see the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) shaking his head; apparently he does not agree with me. If he knows what the Government have in mind, I hope he will intervene and tell us, because it seems that not one of Her Majesty's Scottish Ministers can tell us.

Mr. John Hay: If the hon. Member will look at Clause 4 (3), he will find the answer to the point which he has been making about the inability of Ministers to enforce the carrying out of works by local authorities. I suggest that he read his own Bill.

Mr. Fraser: It is not my Bill. It is a Bill which I have been opposing for many months. It is a Bill which, clearly, the majority of the Scottish electors are opposing.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I hope that the hon. Member does not propose to embark upon a discussion of the Bill as a whole at this moment.

Mr. Steele: It appears that the English hon. Members are only going to prolong the discussion and that we ought to have agreed to recommit the Bill to the Scottish Standing Committee.

Mr. Fraser: I do not wish to transgress your Ruling, Sir Rhys, and to initiate a discussion upon the Bill as a whole, but I wonder whether you would allow me to reply to the hon. Member for Henley. I cannot discuss Clause 4 (3), but I suggest that the hon. Member for Henley and Her Majesty's Ministers themselves have a look at subsection (3). They will find that it has absolutely nothing to do with the question under discussion.

The Deputy-Chairman: The point has now been answered, and perhaps we might return to the Amendment.

Mr. Fraser: Our difficulty before we had the intervention by the hon. Member for Henley lay in getting to know what the Government wish to secure by means of the provisions in the Clause and, in particular, by means of their Amendment. It seems to some of us to be meaningless to say that certain work shall be carried out by a local authority if it is required in the opinion of the local authority. That means that it cannot be mandatory upon the local authority to carry out the work. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley has found great difficulty in reconciling the Amendment with what already appears in the subsection. I must say that I find it quite impossible to reconcile these Amendments. Will the Government please tell us what they intend? What is their wish? How do they expect this Clause of the Bill to be administered?
7.0 p.m.
This is not a Clause to be administered by private landlords; it is a Clause to be administered by public authorities, including the great local authorities in Scotland. The local authorities have to carry out certain works on dilapidated slum houses, and, if we take the words of the subsection and the Amendments, they are to carry out such works as are required "in the opinion of the authority." The Government say that they "shall" carry out those works. The Government must tell us on which leg they stand. Is it mandatory on local authorities to patch up slum houses which they have taken over, or does it mean that they will merely patch up those houses when they feel inclined to do so?
Some of my hon. Friends say that it is a matter of opinion. It is because it is a matter of opinion, using the words of one

of these Amendments, that it seems to us to be completely permissive for the local authority; while the Government have been trying to tell us that it is not completely permissive for the local authority to do as it thinks, but that it is required to carry out certain works. I hope that some Member of the Treasury Bench will tell us on which leg the Government are standing. Is it mandatory or is it permissive? If local authorities are required to carry out certain works and they do not, what action is to be taken? If the local authorities are not required to carry out certain works, will the Government tell us why they wish to write the word "shall" into this Clause?

Mr. Bence: I was rather amazed when I first read these Amendments, and that is why I made an intervention earlier suggesting that we would probably be confused by them. I am sorry that I am not intelligent enough to understand them, but I am an engineer, not a lawyer. When I saw these words, I immediately thought that the lawyers here seemed to have discovered something which we in mechanical engineering have been seeking for years—perpetual motion.
Here we are providing that the local authorities shall do something if, in their opinion, it ought to be done. Therefore, the local authority, who are the people who will have to do the job, are to be the judges whether or not they ought to do it. It is like telling one's young son to wash the back of his neck, if, in his opinion, it requires washing. I have never heard anything like this in all my life; it baffles me completely, and, while I am not a Lawyer, I think I could assure any English hon. Member that this is not really an example of Scottish law.
I have been here long enough and I have had many discussions with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston), to be almost convinced that this is not a general principle in Scottish law. It may be a general principle in the Scottish Conservative Party, but, judging by the evidence, they are not very skilled exponents of or practitioners in either Scottish law or perpetual motion.
I ask the Lord Advocate to give us an explanation of what is meant here. Will he make it clear to me, an engineer, that the local authorities will be compelled to do that job, and, on the point whether


the job ought to be done or not, that there will be other judges to decide, and not the local authority?

The Lord Advocate: I will make one other attempt to clarify the situation, if I can. I am asked whether the obligation in this Clause is mandatory or not. The answer is that it is mandatory. We are substituting the word "shall" for the word "may," but, of course, we have to decide what is to be mandatory and somebody has to determine what it is requisite to do with the particular house concerned.
We think that we are justified in en trusting to the local authorities the decision as to what, in any particular case, is required for rendering or keeping a house in a proper condition. Once that is determined, it is mandatory upon the local authority to carry out the work, and, of course, a default power is avail able if any local authority does not carry out the mandate which Parliament has imposed upon it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Those default powers are avail able in Section 129 of the 1950 Act—

Mr. Ross: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not remain on his feet if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not give way.

The Lord Advocate: We cannot go on with this for ever. Default powers are available under Section 129 of the Act of 1950. If local authorities do not carry out the mandatory obligations imposed upon them by the Clause, the default powers could be used, but the Secretary of State has sufficient confidence in the local authorities in Scotland to believe that it will not be necessary to exercise them. He believes that, when obligations are imposed upon them, they will see to it that in their respective areas they will carry out the responsibilities which Parliament has placed upon them.

Mr. Johnston: I am far from satisfied either with the explanation of the Lord Advocate or with the preliminary explanation of the Joint Under-Secretary, but, in view of the fact that we have a great many other Amendments to deal with, I suggest that my hon. and right

hon. Friends should not press this matter further.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORI TIES TO PURCHASE HOUSES LIABLE TO DEMOLITION OR CLOSING ORDERS.)

Amendments made: In page 4, line 5, leave out first "may," and insert "shall."

In line 5, after second "may," insert:
in the opinion of the authority."— [Mr. J. Stuart.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(LOCAL AUTHORITIES' CONTRIBUTIONS.)

Mr. J. Stuart: I beg to move, in page 5, line 45, at the end, to add:
(2) The Secretary of State may from time to time by order direct that the foregoing subsection shall have effect, in relation to houses approved by him for the purposes of the last foregoing section after the date on which the order comes into force, as if for the reference to an amount equal to the contributions so payable by the Secretary of State as aforesaid there were substituted a reference to an amount bearing such proportion to the said contributions as may be specified in the order.
An order of the Secretary of State under this subsection shall be of no effect until it is approved by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.
Under Clause 5, as drafted, a local authority which is receiving an Exchequer contribution under Clause 4 is required to make an equivalent contribution from the rates; that is to say, its contribution is 50 per cent, and the Exchequer contribution is 50 per cent. The Amendment I am now moving will enable the Secretary of State to vary these proportions by order, and I am moving it to meet views which have been expressed by hon. Members that there should be power to alter the ratio by order, rather than by going through the whole process of legislation. To be effective, the order would require to be approved by this House by affirmative Resolution.
I should make it clear that it is not contemplated that any action is necessary in the near future, but circumstances which are at present unforeseen may arise which would make it desirable to vary the ratio, and for that reason the Government decided to put down this Amendment. While I agree that there


is no obligation upon us slavishly to follow in the footsteps of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, my right hon. Friend agreed, in dealing with a similar Bill for England and Wales, to put down an Amendment similar to this one when that Bill was reconsidered in Committee before the Report stage was commenced. That Amendment was accepted. I felt, therefore, that it probably would meet the views of many hon. Members to table a similar Amendment. I hope that it will be acceptable to the Committee.

Mr. Woodburn: The last part of the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland gave us rather a cold douche. At first he told us that the Amendment was put forward in order to meet arguments raised by my hon. Friends, but he finished by telling us that it was put forward because his right hon. Friend had made alterations in the English Bill. We are therefore not very clear about the purpose or the origin of the Amendment.
In any case, we have a further disappointment. In moving the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman has not deleted Clause 5 as at present drafted. Our objections were mainly to the fact that the proportion was quite wrong and that the local authorities considered that the proportion should be 1 to 3, as in all other housing grants. We seem to be following the pattern of Clause 4 to which the present Clause refers. Clause 4 starts by being very definite that £7 5s. is to be paid over 15 years. That sounds very promising, but we find that the first proviso says:
Provided that the Secretary of State may from time to time by order direct that paragraph (b) of this subsection shall have effect, in relation to houses approved after the date on which the order comes into force, as if for the sum therein specified there were substituted such higher or lower sum as may be specified in the order.
We start with the declaration that the grant is to be £7 5s., then the Secretary of State reserves his right to make it what he likes.
We pass on to subsection (3), where again the Secretary of State takes power to alter contributions to a local authority. In fact, at the end of the subsection he may withhold the whole or any part of the contributions payable under

that subsection to a local authority. We have never got satisfaction as to what this means. The Secretary of State has power not to pay anything to a local authority.
When we come to Clause 5, we get a curious situation. The local authority must pay an equal proportion to that which the Government pay. The Government, in Clause 4 (3), may withhold the whole of their contribution to the local authority, and the local authority's contribution in that event may be 50 per cent, of nothing. In other words, it will be allowed to spend nothing.
In the subsection now being moved, the Secretary of State introduces a new flexibility into Clause 5. If Clause 5 had been withdrawn and the Secretary of State had proposed a new Clause to give him power to make a proportionate grant according to what he specified in an order to be brought before the House, that would at least have given a promise that the local authorities could discuss the proportion with him in the future. He now tells us that the proposed new subsection means nothing at all, and that, although he is putting it forward, nothing is proposed to be done under it unless unforeseen circumstances arise. He has not told us what kind of circumstances may arise.
7.15 p.m.
Anyone who reads the Bill to find out the position of a local authority under it will be in a complete maze. To start with. Clause 4 gives a calculation that local authorities will get £7 5s. and then finishes by saying that they will not get £7 5s. In the next subsection we find that the local authorities may not get anything at all. Under Clause 5, local authorities are to pay the same contribution as the State, namely, 50 per cent., but in the new subsection they will be paid only according to the whim of the Secretary of State.
Are the Government going to pay the grant or not? What does the Amendment mean? Does it mean that the local authorities are to have a bigger proportion than 50 per cent., or that the Secretary of State will agree in future to the request of the local authorities that the grant under this Clause should be on the same 3-to-l basis as in all other housing legislation and not 50–50?


The Secretary of State ought to give us more illumination on these matters. I do not know whether he has copied these provisions automatically from his right hon. Friend, but he ought to clarify the position for the local authorities before we pass from the Clause.

Mr. Manuel: I listened most carefully to the Secretary of Stale when he was moving the Amendment. He did not tell us very much. Clause 5 is very short, and we must have regard to what is laid down in Clause 4. I do not know whether the Secretary of State is proposing the Amendment only because of what the Minister of Housing and Local Government did in the English Bill. If so, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether the English Bill contains provisions similar to Clause 4?
Clause 4 gives the Secretary of State all the power he is asking for in the Amendment. If we look at subsection (2) we see a proviso which reads:
Provided that the Secretary of State may from time to time by order direct that paragraph (b) of this subsection shall have effect, in relation to houses approved after the date on which the order comes into force, as if for the sum therein specified there were substituted such higher or lower sum as may be specified in the order.
Surely ample power is there either way, if things do not go how the Secretary of State envisages they should go.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to make headway with this matter, he ought to say that local authority expenditure may become so high that the proposed 50 per cent, proportion is not enough and that the purpose of the Amendment is to increase the Government's subsidy to local authorities; in other words, that the local authorities are to be given more than £7 5s. in subsidy from the Government. I really cannot understand the position. The right hon. Gentleman should tell us something more than just that, as the English Minister has put this provision in the English Bill, we should put it in the Scottish version.
What is the right hon. Gentleman's fear? Are the powers in Clause 4 not sufficient already? When the provision I have read out gives him permission to increase or lower, why does he need this further provision in Clause 5, which deals with the same thing? It is one thing to say that, due to rising costs and increased expenditure, he feels that local authorities

tackling the problem realistically will be hard pressed and that he wants reserve powers to increase the Government's ratio to more than 50 per cent. But if it means that he wants the local authorities possibly to pay more when already under the provisions of the Bill they will be saddled with a fearsome burden, then we on this side have no sympathy with the Amendment.

Mr. Ross: A little further explanation is required of the Government here. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has pointed out, local authorities must know how they stand financially in these matters. If in forcing local authorities into a task which to most of them is distasteful and fairly costly the Government said, "Do not worry; for 15 years we will give you £7 5s. for each house you patch up," and, in a further Clause," You will pay exactly the same as us," the local authorities would then know exactly their own financial obligations.
In Clause 4, however, the Government say that they will be able to vary up or down the amount they pay to the local authorities over the 15 years. From the point of view of the local authorities, that is uncertain enough—I am sure no businessman on the other side would like to be left in such a state of financial uncertainty—but now this Clause introduces something new.
In the original Clause the Government say to the local authorities, "You will pay the same as the Government. If the amount payable by the Government is £7 5s. then you will pay £7 5s." They now say that the Government are to have the power to vary, not what the Government pay, but the proportion that the local authority will pay. That is dictation with a will—and financial dictation. It could happen that, retaining the same general figure of £14 10s. as the annual expenditure on the upkeep of one house, under one Clause the Government could reduce its own contribution from £7 5s. to £6—

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Why retain a figure like that?

Mr. Ross: I have to start with some proposed figure and the amount is referred to in Clause 4 (2, b) of the Bill. The Government could reduce their own


contribution to £6 but, under the subsection with which we are now dealing, they could compel the local authority to pay £8 10s. instead of £7 5s. The local authority is put in a very difficult position, and I think we should have from the Secretary of State an explanation of what he has in mind. If there is one thing about which burgh treasurers in Scotland are concerned, it is the money and where it is to come from. They are very grateful for increased contributions coming from the Exchequer, but here they can be financially dictated to.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State preaches to us and says, "Please leave the local authorities alone." He now says, "We want the power to dictate to the local authorities that they shall pay more than the 50 per cent, that the Government are paying." That can go on for 15 years. It will be 15 years of financial chaos. The only hope is that this Government will be out of office within 15 months and not 15 years.

Mr. McInnes: I flattered myself that I understood the ramifications of this Bill, but I must now confess that the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed makes it more complex than ever it was before. I should like to know, for example, whether the Amendment will now cover houses compulsorily purchased by local authorities, those purchased by agreement, those already in the possession of local authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act—even those houses which have been gifted to local authorities. Does the proposed Amendment embrace all those houses, and the houses coming under the Act as a whole?
Will the proposed Amendment alter the basis of an annual payment equal to one half of the annual loan charges as distinct from the annual payment of the contributions of £7 5s. by the Government and by the local authority? If so, it will be a very serious matter for the local authority. It will be very difficult for a local authority to understand quite clearly what the financial implications of this Bill now are.
I should like to know how the Lord Advocate is able to square up the proposed Amendment with Clause 4 (3), which states:

If it appears to the Secretary of State that the expenditure incurred as a whole by a local authority in carrying out works on houses approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section is unduly low having regard to the amount of the contribution for the time being payable in respect of those houses under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section, he may withhold the whole or any part of the contributions payable under that paragraph to that authority.
Clause 5, with the proposed Amendment, would read:
as if for the reference to an amount equal to the contributions so payable by the Secretary of State as aforesaid there were substituted a reference to an amount bearing such proportion to the said contributions as may be specified in the order.
7.30 p.m.
The Secretary of State is taking right and power from every conceivable angle. He is to withhold, to alter, to substitute, to give an unknown contribution, he is going to put it up or down. He cannot play that sort of Jekyll and Hyde game with the local authorities, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to come clean. This Amendment makes this an insidious Clause. The right hon. Gentleman must come clean with the local authorities, and let them know precisely where they stand.
I ask the Minister to take back Clauses 4 and 5 for reconsideration. I do not know whether it is the Parliamentary draftsmen who are responsible for this. If it is, it is not to their credit. However, the right hon. Gentleman cannot escape responsibility on that score, and I ask him to take the Amendment back and redraft it, and bring it forward again on Report. I do so in the interests of the local authorities, and, indeed, in the interests of the Government themselves.

Mr. Hector Hughes: With further reference to what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) has just said, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to read the preceding Clause, particularly the proviso to subsection (2). He will find that the idea that he seeks to introduce into this Clause is dealt with there. By proposing this new subsection he is introducing what, so far as this Clause is concerned, is a new idea, and he is thereby introducing into the administration of the Measure uncertainty, complication and complexity. He will make the Bill difficult to construe and difficult to administer.
By this new subsection he is providing for two sets of houses, two different types, one under subsection (1) and the other under subsection (2). In what circumstances, to use the language of the Amendment, are the houses to be "approved by him "? What rules are to be made for his approval? How is he to discriminate one set of houses from the other? Will not all this complication greatly increase the responsibilities of the local authorities and make it necessary for them to increase their staffs and increase their expenses and put an added and quite unnecessary burden on the ratepayers? I sincerely hope the Government will take the new Clause back and reconsider it, and send it to limbo.

Mr. J. Stuart: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) said that he hoped we would take the new Clause back, but I am dealing with an Amendment to Clause 5. There is no sinister motive connected with the Amendment whatsoever. I can assure the Committee of that. I am rather disappointed and surprised that it has received such a lukewarm reception. I had hoped it might have been accepted, because when the English Measure was recommitted and the Government moved a similar Amendment, the Opposition spokesman said:
I take the opportunity of thanking—
the Government—
—for this concession to local authorities."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1954; Vol. 5,25, c. 2074.]
It was apparently something that was wanted.
I said, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, that we are not contemplating at this stage varying the ratio, which is 50–50. I said in moving the Amendment that unforeseen circumstances might occur which would make some alteration necessary or desirable. I am not aware of that at this stage. Parliamentary control is retained because any change can be made only by making an order and laying that order and getting an affirmative Resolution. That provision retains Parliamentary control. The short answer, therefore, to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) is that it would require legislation to vary the ratio in the Bill, and the object of the Amendment is to make it possible to

vary the ratio by an order and affirmative Resolution. The Government have accepted the view that this is a simplification of procedure. It appeared to be one that was welcomed by the Opposition in connection with the English Bill. That was why I put down this Amendment. There is no sinister motive behind it.
I think the answer to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is that Parliamentary control is retained. The answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) is that Clause 4 enables the Secretary of State to increase the contribution of £7 5s. should it be desirable, but Clause 5 as it stands does not permit of any alteration in the ratio. There is nothing about this Amendment that need alarm anybody, and I hope the Committee will accept it.

Mr. Woodburn: I explained that if this Amendment had the purpose of setting the right hon. Gentleman free to consider the local authorities' desire that the ratio should be altered to 1 to 3 rather than 50–50, we should be prepared to accept it, and might even be prepared to welcome it. We are probably a little more cautious than our English colleagues in welcoming it. That is not because we think the right hon. Gentleman is full of sinister thoughts. Indeed, one of our difficulties is that we are not clear what he has in mind about the matter, or whether he has any thoughts of what will happen. When he moved the Amendment he appeared to have no purpose, except, perhaps, to obtain greater latitude to change his mind lest something should turn up that would require him to do so.
We are all in favour of the Secretary of State having power, but it would have been more satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman had been able to tell us a little more of what this is all about. After moving the Amendment he proceeded to explain that he had no knowledge of any circumstances in which the Amendment would come into force.
I think the Lord Advocate must agree that the people who have to work the Measure should be able to get some logic out of it. It may be that we Scots are a bit weak in insisting on there being any logic in it, when our English colleagues, perhaps, would not insist on it. They are prepared to accept what they regard as common sense, and hope that it will work


out all right in the end. We are a little bit more realistic. The Lord Advocate is supposed to advise us on the legal aspects of the matter, and therefore I would ask him how the Clause can be reconciled with Clause 4 (3).
If 50–50 is the rule and remains the rule, how can the Secretary of State take away his 50 if the Clause says that payments must be 50–50 as between the local authority and the Secretary of State? If they are to be equal payments by both the local authority and the Secretary of State, how can this be reconciled with the power in subsection (3) of Clause 4 that after the local authority has spent its 50, the Secretary of State may take his 50 back again and withhold it? It seems to me quite irreconcilable.
I wish that the Secretary of State would try to get some sort of harmony in the Bill and some kind of pattern that local authorities can understand. There may be something wrong with my mind, but I cannot understand the Clause and I have not heard of any local authority which understands its position. Now the right hon. Gentleman says that he will make the Clause more flexible and bring it before the House, which is quite a good thing, but I should be more satisfied if he withdrew the Clause and left it for the Secretary of State to introduce an order saying what proportions were to be used in regard to these payments, and if he gave the assurance that this matter would be discussed with the local authorities and that if they showed good cause for altering the proportion, the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to consider it.
We do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has any sinister intentions—in fact, we are convinced by what he says that he has no intentions either sinister or otherwise; but it would be more satisfactory for the Committee, in agreeing to the Amendment, if Members knew that it had some purpose and that that purpose would be carried out.

Mr. Manuel: I asked the Secretary of State whether the powers contained in Clause 4 were not sufficient without his Amendment to Clause 5, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that without the Amendment legislation would be necessary- But the portion of the Amendment

to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred states:
An order of the Secretary of State under this subsection shall be of no effect until it is approved by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.
Clause 4 (4) states:
An order of the Secretary of State under subsection (2) of this section shall be of no effect until it is approved by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.
That is exactly the same thing. The Secretary of State already has in Clause 4 what he said he did not have in Clause 5. The words which I have quoted are identical. The right hon. Gentleman cannot ride off in that way.
What is the explanation? I am sure that the Secretary of State did not deliberately fob me off, and must have overlooked these identical words. If he reads Clause 4 (4) and then the latter part of his Amendment, the words of which are identical, he will see that his reply was wrong and that the Amendment is quite unnecessary.

Mr. Ross: Will the Secretary of State answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) regarding the varying of the ratio, which applies not only to subsection (2, a) of Clause 4 but to subsection (2, b)?

Mr. J. Stuart: I do not want to hide anything at all. We have passed Clause 4, in which the Secretary of State is enabled to increase the £7 5s. contribution.

Mr. Ross: Or to lower it.

Mr. Stuart: To vary it. Clause 5 does not give the Secretary of State power to vary the amount which is to be paid— the 50–50 ratio in the Bill.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Stuart: The sole object of the Amendment is to enable the ratio—at present the 50–50, which is the figure decided on—to be varied should circumstances in the future make it desirable to do so without coming to the House for legislation. It is purely a simplification which, as I said, I hoped would be acceptable to the Committee.

Mr. McNeil: I may be completely wrong, but I seem to be in fairly general


company. When we discussed this matter in Standing Committee, the Joint Undersecretary replied. My recollection is that we were told that the power to vary, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred and which arises from Clause 4 (3), had to exist because there might come a time when circumstances had changed and the position had to be reviewed. The Committee were not very happy about that, I agree.
Possibly I am misunderstanding the right hon. Gentleman's intention. It may be that he is seeking to rid himself of that arbitrary power, and that he is proposing to substitute for that arbitrary power in Clause 4 this more limited power which, as he says, would rest on an Affirmative Resolution of the House. It is a little disturbing with this type of machinery that such an order would not be amendable, but would have to be accepted or rejected; but it might be argued that that was a step forward.
It may be that it would be the right hon. Gentleman's intention not to vary the situation and not in any way to place a greater burden upon the local authority without first coming to the House; but the right hon. Gentleman must explain why I and my hon. Friends are completely misunderstanding the situation and that if this is the only method he would use, he will take powers at a later stage to rid himself of the greater and overriding power. It is difficult to understand his argument.
Even if the right hon. Gentleman were able to meet us there, the difficulty would still exist that no local authority can plan if it does not know from year to year what financial burden it has to bear and what part is being shared by the Treasury. If the right hon. Gentleman would say that he does not contemplate any circumstance in which the ratio could be varied to the prejudice of the local authority, we would be taking a big step forward. To be fair to him, he seems to have that in mind and came near to saying it in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn).
The Secretary of State said clearly that in the later discussions with the local authorities he had carried them with him in the sense that they did not object to the ratio, although they might object to the basis of the calculation. It would be extremely unfortunate if now the right

hon. Gentleman threw away that measure of good will which he secured by his negotiations subsequent to the Second Reading of the Bill.
Will he not, therefore, say that he will look again to see whether there is substance in the argument which I am offering, and which several of my hon. Friends share, that he seems to have two powers, one of which overrides the limited power, and that if there is anything in our suggestion he will find a revised form of words? If I am wrong in my understanding of the matter—and I am inclined to be honest and imagine that I am misunderstanding the situation—perhaps I can be corrected. Parliamentary draftsmen occasionally leave loopholes and the best of them produce ambiguities, but they do not produce a flat contradiction, so I am inclined to argue that I must be misunderstanding the situation.
Apart from that, now is the time for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he seeks this Amendment only so that the ratio may be varied to the benefit of the local authority and never to its disadvantage. If it could be to its disadvantage, we may have something to say about the previous Clause, but it would greatly facilitate the proceedings of the Committee and relieve many of the anxieties of local authorities if we could have from the right hon. Gentleman the assurance which we seek.

Mr. J. Stuart: I can give this assurance to the right hon. Gentleman, that there is absolutely no intention of altering the present 50–50 ratio. That is not at the back of the Government's mind. What was proposed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government during the Committee stage of the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill was that the Government should have a more flexible implement to deal with such matters as this. I say there is no intention at the present time of altering the ratio, and I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance, if it is of any satisfaction to him and the Committee— we are anxious to proceed with the rest of this Bill—that there will be no alteration during the lifetime of the present Parliament and before a General Election has taken place.

Mr. McNeil: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is now trying to pull


my leg? Can anything more alarming to the local authorities in Scotland be imagined than to be solemnly told that this 15-year plan, this "Operation Rescue "on a massive scale is going to be valid only for an additional 2½years? Let us assume that it will be a year before plans are approved. That, I think, was the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman in Standing Committee. In those circumstances local authorities may not be able to start operations until the following year, that is to say, 1956. The undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman now gives could mean that the local authorities would never once hope to have this 50–50 ratio maintenance.
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman means that. He does not intend to inflict further hardship on the local authorities by reducing the ratio. But if he did not mean that, he must, to ease the mind of not only the Committee but also the local authorities, say that not for the next five, seven or 10 years does he contemplate varying the ratio adversely to the local authorities. Speaking for the Opposition, and indeed for the next most likely Government, I can say that we certainly would never use this machinery to prejudice the local authorities. If I can say that, surely the right hon. Gentleman, who no doubt has been contemplating the electoral results announced last week and assuming that they might apply to himself, can fairly say that there will be no change to the disadvantage of the local authorities.

Mr. Stuart: As I have failed to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee with an Amendment which I thought was going to be acceptable, and because of the debate that has taken place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. McNeil: I will be quite frank with the right hon. Gentleman. I am on my feet so that my hon. Friends may have an opportunity of considering whether the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this Amendment is a wise one or whether we ought to press the Secretary of State and the Government to divide upon the issue. As I stand here at this Box, I am not at all clear in my mind which is the correct course to take.
What is it that the right hon. Gentleman argues? He argues that, because we have been concerned for the welfare of the local authorities and have been anxious to discover whether this Amendment could be used to their disadvantage, he should withdraw his Amendment. He is overwhelmed by the arguments which we have put forward. [HON. MEBMERS: "Oh."] There are only two explanations. One is that the right hon. Gentleman anticipated using this power to make an order so that the local authorities might be advantaged. If I had been in his position and that had been my intention, I would have said so to the Committee, and if he had said so my hon. and right hon. Friends would immediately have approved the intention. But it seems that the right hon. Gentleman is not able to give such an undertaking on behalf of the Government.
That means that this new ratio of 50–50 is the most the Government will do. It takes the place of the rate of 3 to 1 in favour of the Government and is the most the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make. But he says to himself, "The opposition is so strong to this that I really will be in trouble with the local authorities over their interpretation of this Amendment, which might mean that their future was even less securely safeguarded. I think, therefore, that it is an advantage and a distinct score at the Opposition to withdraw this Amendment."

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The right hon. Gentleman has asked leave to withdraw his Amendment, and I must now put the Question.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it not possible to argue whether the Amendment should be withdrawn or not?

The Deputy-Chairman: Not now, but the Amendment can still be debated.

Mr. Woodburn: The Secretary of State has done us a great disservice in suggesting that we have opposed his Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I challenge any hon. Member on the other side of the Committee to show where we have opposed the Amendment. All we have asked for was an explanation of the Amendment and how we should reconcile it with the rest of the


Clause. The hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) and the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) plainly under stand this Amendment without any explanation at all. The Secretary of State has treated the Committee and the Opposition with great discourtesy—

Mr. J. Stuart: I am not treating the Committee with discourtesy at all. I am endeavouring to please the Committee by withdrawing an Amendment which it does not seem to like.

Mr. Woodburn: The Committee has not raised the slightest objection to the Amendment. Indeed, I stated categorically that what we would regret was if the Secretary of State did not withdraw Clause 5 and bring in an Amendment with more flexibility, removing this 50–50 basis altogether. The Committee is quite entitled to ask the Secretary of State for an explanation as to the meaning of the Amendment. What are the purposes of this Amendment? The Secretary of State seems to be getting to the position where the slightest question makes him rattled. The other night we had more than two-hours debate because the right hon. Gentleman did not give us a simple explanation of the meaning of the word "Executives." That was on the Electricity Reorganisation (Scotland) Bill, and that debate went on for 2½ hours because the right hon. Gentleman would not, or could not, explain what was in the Bill.
I have never know a Bill to go through this House without explanations being given as required. We are entitled to ask for explanations, so that we may understand what is in the Bill. Now the Secretary of State introduces an Amendment and explains to us that there is nothing sinister about it. I have accepted his word on that, but, evidently, he has not made inquiry as to the purpose of the Amendment. I can see good purposes in it and I can see other purposes in it. At least it makes Clause 5 fit in with the variability of Clause 4, which can go up and down, backwards and forwards, all round the circle, and nobody knows where it will end. On the other hand, Clause 5 was so definite and decided that it made Clause 4 irrational. Therefore, this Amendment makes Clause 5 harmonise with Clause 4.
8.0 p.m.
But, Sir Rhys, it ought not to be for me to explain that to the Committee. It ought to be for the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate has studied this Bill at all. He never gives any explanations, he reiterates a phrase, and that is supposed to clear up something which it does not make clear, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not as lucid as we have a right to expect.
We on this side of the Committee are not lawyers. My hon. Friend has raised some legal points, but they have not been cleared up and we are entitled to know what Clauses mean. We have no intention of opposing this Amendment, but we are entitled to know what it means, what will be the effect on the local authorities, and the local authorities are entitled to know. So I put this direct question to the Secretary of State: If the local authorities can produce evidence to him that the 50–50 basis is not satisfactory, will this make it possible for him to consider that basis and, if necessary, bring in an order that alters the basis in accordance with his discussions with the local authorities?

Mr. J. Stuart: The answer is simple: Yes, it will be possible.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Secretary of State realise that he is holding himself and his Government up to the ridicule of the nation? First, he proposes this Amendment, then he adduces reasons to justify the Amendment which he hopes will satisfy the Committee, then, on being worsted in debate by the arguments adduced on this side of the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman says he will give an undertaking that there will be no legislation of this kind in this Parliament. Does he realise that he cannot give an undertaking for the next Parliament, that he cannot legislate for the next Parliament? Then, as a last resort, he changes once more and asks leave to withdraw the Amendment.
The Committee and the nation are entitled to know upon which of those three legs he stands because, like a Manxman, he seems to have three. First, the right hon. Gentleman proposes; then he gives an undertaking; then he asks leave to withdraw the


Amendment. This is treating the Committee with disrespect. The Secretary of State is not entitled to do that. He was asked for an explanation in justification of the Amendment and then, with great pettiness, he said, "Very well, I will withdraw the Amendment." That is not the way to treat the Committee.

Mr. McInnes: During my intervention I asked the Secretary of State at least six pointed questions. He replied to one of them and left the others unanswered. I shall repeat the one which concerns me vitally. Does the proposed Amendment to Clause 5 apply to Clause 4 (2, a)? As I understand the position it would apply technically. I am seriously perturbed at that and would gladly welcome the offer of the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this Amendment, because it has far-reaching effects which I believe were never intended.

Mr. Stuart: I can assure the hon. Member that there is no such intention and that this Amendment does not cover the contribution towards the cost of purchase under Clause 4 (2, a)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF TRUSTEES, ETC., FOR EXPENSES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN CERTAIN CASES.)

(1) Where in pursuance of any enactment (whether contained in a public general Act or in a local Act) a local authority seek to recover from any person as being the person for the time being entitled to receive, or Who would if the same were let be entitled to receive, the rents of any premises, being a house or a building which contains a house or a part of such a building, the expenses incurred by the authority in the execution of works in relation to the premises, then, if that person proves—

(a) that he is receiving the rents merely as trustee, factor, tutor, curator or agent for some other person, or as liquidator of a company; and
(b) that he has not, and since the date of the service on him of a demand for payment of the expenses aforesaid has not had, in his hands on behalf of that other person or, in the case of a liquidator of a company, on behalf of the creditors of the company sufficient funds, rents and other assets to discharge the whole demand of the authority;

his liability shall, notwithstanding anything in the said enactment, be limited to the total

amount of the funds, rents and other assets which he has, or has had, in his hands as aforesaid.
(2) Nothing in the foregoing subsection shall prejudice or affect any right of a local authority to recover from any person other than such a trustee, factor, tutor, curator or agent or liquidator as aforesaid the whole or any part of any expenses recoverable by them in pursuance of any such enactment as afore said or otherwise.
(3) The proviso to subsection (3) of section eight of the principal Act shall cease to have effect.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this Clause is to make clear the position of persons holding property including houses, in a fiduciary capacity, that is to say, holding them on behalf of some other persons. There was a recent decision in the Sheriff Court in Glasgow as a result of which, it is anticipated, were that decision to be left standing, that persons in a fiduciary capacity such as are covered by this Clause might be reluctant to act in that capacity in view of their possibly being made personally liable for expenses of works on the property.
The effect of this Clause is to limit the liability of trustees and persons acting in a fiduciary capacity of that kind where a local authority, under statutory powers, carries out necessary works on house property and seeks to make trustees or persons in a fiduciary capacity personally liable for these expenses. The Clause would limit the liability of these persons to the total amount of the funds, rent or other assets in their hands as trustees, which appears to be a perfectly fair and reasonable limitation upon their liability. Certainly, it should remove the reluctance which the recent decision in the Sheriff Court might otherwise have upon people acting in a fiduciary capacity. The last thing we want to do is to prevent people from undertaking that task.
The limitation in question has already been accepted in other Acts; for instance, the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, has a similar limitation, the Housing Act, 1950, has a limitation of this kind, and there is a modified limitation in Section 58 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903. I feel that the justice of the limitation proposed in this new Clause will appeal to the Committee.

Mr. D. Johnston: We have all listened to the explanation of the Lord Advocate with great interest, and I feel sure that the Committee will have no difficulty in agreeing that the principle on this new Clause is generally acceptable.
I would not have said anything about it had it not been that there is one point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not noticed, which may make the Clause less acceptable to the Committee. It is the provision that this Clause of limitation of liability shall apply to the liquidator of a company. That does not appear in the 1950 Act, to which the Lord Advocate referred. The Clause should not apply to a liquidator of a company, because there has recently occurred to several clever persons in the West of Scotland a method of getting rid of obligations which they would have as owners of dilapidated property.
That method is to transfer the property for a nominal sum to a company. It is possible to float a company with a few pounds, or purely nominal capital. The property is transferred and the company then goes into liquidation, having no assets and indeed no purpose other than to receive this property. The result is that the liquidator simply says to the corporation, the superior or other person who, otherwise, would be entitled to come against the owners of the property, "I have no assets other than this bankrupt concern. You cannot proceed against me."
It is possible under certain Acts, both public and private, to make such a liquidator liable not only for the property which has come into his hands but personally. I am sure that it is not the intention of the Government to permit this and I am informed that it has happened within the last year or two. I suggest to the Government that either they do not press the new Clause at the moment or, if they feel that that is asking too much, that they give an undertaking to delete all reference to a liquidator in paragraphs (a) and (b.) Then the Clause would apply, as Section 8 of the 1950 Act applies, to persons who are properly described as
… trustee, factor, tutor, curator or agent for some other person,…
and their liability would be limited to the funds which come into their hands. I feel that that would be agreeable to the

Committee and if the Lord Advocate could give that undertaking I do not think that it would be necessary to spend any further time on the Clause.

The Lord Advocate: I believe that to exclude liquidators would be to create a very anomalous situation. A trustee in bankruptcy will have this limitation of liability and I see no justification in reason or logic for excluding a similar limitation in the case of a liquidator.
Let us take the case, which the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) figured, of a transfer of property for some nominal sum to a limited company which then goes into liquidation. Why, in those circumstances, should the liquidator be made personally liable? As the law stands, the very fact of his appointment as a liquidator would be enough to make him personally liable. The inevitable conclusion is that we shall not get reputable people undertaking the task of being a liquidator. It is far better to limit the liability of the liquidator, particularly in the case to which the hon. and learned Member referred, to the amount of the sums with which he intermits. We shall then have a case of this kind properly wound up by a reputable liquidator who will disclose and administer the situation.
There will be methods available, and there are methods under the Companies Act, for bringing the real pirates to book in a case of that kind. We shall secure that if we have limited liability for the liquidator, because then we shall have a proper kind of liquidating, which we shall not have if we exclude this liability. Therefore, it seems to me that the Committee would be far better advised to put the liquidator in the same position as the trustee or some other person in a fiduciary capacity and give him the benefit of confining his liability to the amount of the funds.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. D. Johnston: Under what Section of the Companies Act would it be possible to proceed against a director of a company of the kind that I have envisaged, or the liquidator? So far as I am aware, it would be quite impossible to proceed against these fraudulent companies, or the directors thereof.

The Lord Advocate: I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman


thinks that the law of Scotland is so deficient that it cannot supply a remedy where there is a case of fraud. What happens in that case is that a reputable liquidator who undertakes the liquidation reports to the Crown Office in cases of fraud and those cases are then considered properly. If we do not have reputable liquidators undertaking the task the whole matter may not come to the light of day. If fraudulent activities of that kind are going on, it is far better that they should be disclosed and reported to the Crown Office where criminal proceedings, if necessary, are taken.

Mr. Johnston: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned fraud and I see how fraud can be dealt with, but under what Section of the Companies Act is it possible to proceed? I have a fair knowledge of the Act and have spent as long, if not a great deal longer, at the Crown Office than has the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I know of no case that can be dealt with under that Act where there is a transfer to a company and, to avoid liability, the company has gone into liquidation.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I oppose the new Clause and I hope that the Government will take it back for reconsideration. I respectfully agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) on the soundness of the principle which it is sought to enshrine in the new Clause. I do not propose to enter into discussion about liquidators, beyond saying that I think that the Lord Advocate will find that liquidators are adequately protected without the Clause.
I oppose the Clause on other grounds. I am against it, because I think that it will put local authorities into an intolerable position. It will place upon them a burden which will increase their expense and trouble. It will necessitate further law costs and increases of staff. Local authorities have quite enough to do without the added burdens which the Clause would place upon them. The new Clause is bad because it treats local authorities in an invidious way. It would be too difficult to administer and too expensive. Let us consider some of the burdens which the new Clause would place upon them.

Commander Galbraith: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman give way a moment? I am trying to follow him and I am having some difficulty. To which new Clause is he speaking?

Mr. Hughes: The Clause relating to limitation of liability of trustees.

Commander Galbraith: That is what we are dealing with.

Mr. Hector Hughes: And that is what I am dealing with. I am sorry that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's mind is not sufficiently alert to realise what the Committee is discussing and what the arguments pro and con are. It is really not a matter for people like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is more a matter for the learned Lord Advocate, who has been dealing with it up to the moment. I am at a loss to understand why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman intervenes to try to grapple with something which is beyond his comprehension.
I was pointing to some of the difficulties that will confront local authorities if this new Clause passes. Take the first three lines:
Where in pursuance of any enactment (whether contained in a public general Act or in a local Act) a local authority seek to recover from any person as being the person for the time being entitled to receive.
How is the local authority to find out what entitlement means? What is entitlement within the meaning of the third line of the Clause? How is that title to be established? Is it to be established by documents, or oral evidence and what tribunal is to establish it? This Clause should be rejected because it places too great a burden on the local authorities, it would increase their legal expenses, necessitate an increase in their staffs and their administration generally.
I turn to line 3:
or who would if the same were let be entitled to receive, the rents of any premises, being a house or a building which contains a house or a part of such a building, the expenses incurred by the authority in the execution of works in relation to the premises, then, if that person proves—
(a) that he is receiving the rents merely as trustee, factor, tutor, curator or agent for some other person, or as liquidator of a company;
How is he to prove that? That, again, would necessitate a great deal of proof


and a great deal of evidence. Is it to be written evidence, or oral evidence and to the satisfaction of what tribunal? What tribunal is to hear and determine this and, when a tribunal has heard and determined it, will it be final and conclusive, or is there to be an appeal to some other tribunal? All this is opaque. It will place undue burdens and costs on the local authority. The Clause also states, under (b):
that he has not, and since the date of the service on him of a demand for payment of the expenses aforesaid has not had. in his hands on behalf of that other person or, in the case of a liquidator of a company, on behalf of the creditors of the company sufficient funds, rents and other assets to discharge the whole demand of the authority:
Who is to determine that? What evidence is to be adduced with regard to that? It does not even say who is to prove it, let alone who is to be satisfied with the proof. This is completely opaque.
The Clause is quite unsatisfactory. It places an undue burden—[Laughter.]. It is all very well for right hon. Gentlemen opposite to laugh as if this were a comedy. It is no laughing matter for the tenants, the unfortunate people who will be victimised by this bad legislation. It is up to the Lord Advocate, or the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary, if he feels equal to it, now to explain to the satisfaction of the Committee what this Clause means and to satisfy the Committee that this is a just and proper Clause. I oppose it and shall vote against it if there is not a satisfactory explanation forthcoming.

Mr. William Hannan: In layman's language I wish to support the contention of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston). My hon. Friend drew the attention of the Committee to a practice which has been going on, not only for two or three years, but for four or five years. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State knows of this matter.
The deputy town clerk of Glasgow, Mr. Gordon, is an expert on these housing matters. He has produced a paper dealing with this point. In that paper Mr. Gardon says:
The term ' abandon' is used as a popular term. In law the owner cannot abandon a

property, but the term is now freely used, and it is of interest to examine the different circumstances in which property is regarded as abandoned.
He goes on to the specific point which is very relevant to what has been said:
The owner forms a private limited liability company with nominal capital, and conveys the property to the company. As the liability of a company is limited to its funds, when these funds are finished the property can be abandoned and there is no remedy of any avail against the company. This is the modern equivalent of the old idea of conveying to a man of straw.
I am not a legal man, but, in trying to understand this with a layman's understanding, I suggest to the Lord Advocate that there is here something which has been going on for some years past, and it is an abuse of public responsibility. If the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley would help to rectify this matter and to place responsibility where it lies, I feel that the Committee would be obliged if further consideration were given to it.

Mr. Hoy: The Lord Advocate has heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) has said and the Lord Advocate, I am certain, is aware of properties in the City of Edinburgh about which there has already been some dispute and even court cases over the liability of the owner to meet repair charges.
The owners attempt to get rid of them, and we have heard of the notorious case of one owner who wanted to sell a large tenement property to my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. W. Reid) for Id. One wonders what would be the position of the tenants in those circumstances if the capital involved in that propery were 1d.; who would pay for the repairs which had to be carried out and who would be held responsible for them? That is what perturbs me.
8.30 p.m.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary was just a little too hasty with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) because my hon. and learned Friend was asking a reasonable question. The Government have inserted into the Bill the provision that these repairs are to be undertaken on the considered opinion of the corporation. My hon. and learned Friend was asking a reasonable question. It was this.
If the corporation decides that considerable repairs have to be made to property, and it then finds that after the people who were presumed to be owners or trustees, or whoever is mentioned in the new Clause have been charged up to their full responsibility, there still remains a large part of the account to be met, who then has to pay that sum? Is it the corporation, and if so, will that charge have to be met by the ratepayers? It would appear that that is the case. If it is not to be paid by the trustees, will it have to be met by the corporation, and in that case do the Government propose to make some added contribution to cover the corporation's liability?
It may be that these things were not intended, or might not even happen, but these are questions which arise in one's mind as one discusses the new Clause. The Lord Advocate will wish to reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) about the questions he raised regarding responsibility or as to what action can be taken under the Companies Act. I should be grateful if, when doing so, the Lord Advocate would reply to the questions which I have just raised.

Mr. Steele: It seems to me that in the world today, and more particularly in this country, the word "company" is coming into disrepute. I remember the long discussions we had on the Finance Bill about companies. It was quite clear then from the evidence brought forward that many companies were changing their names for the sole purpose of avoiding their Income Tax responsibilities.
We on this side of the Committee agree with the principle embodied in the new Clause, but it widens the principle by bringing in "a company." I refer to the words:
or as liquidator of a company …
What is happening, by making an alteration in this way, is that, as has been clearly outlined by my hon. Friends the Members for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) and Leith (Mr. Hoy), it will be quite easy to form a company for the avoidance of this responsibility.
The Government should be wary about the use of companies in that way. It is not so long ago that we read in the news-

papers of a very prominent individual who had died and had only left, we were all amazed to learn, a sum of £600, entailing death duties of £18. I am sure the Committee remember that. It concerned a prominent Scotsman, a very noble Gentleman.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: He left two castles.

Mr. Steele: My hon. Friend, who is an authority on the subject, says that he left two castles. That is perfectly true. When we examined what had happened, we realised that it was because he had formed a company.
In this new Clause, we see the Governmentment not only condoning this avoidance of responsibility but encouraging it by the extension of that position in the new Clause. I am sure that all of us on this side of the Committee cannot agree to that being done. I hope that the Government will recognise their responsibility in this matter and will, in the proper place, make the alteration which is necessary.

Mr. McNeil: The offer of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) still stands. We would have been most anxious to assist the Government if they had based themselves on the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the principal Act. I will revert to that point in a few moments. In what I am saying I am not quoting my hon. and learned Friend. As I frequently explain to the Lord Advocate, I am no lawyer. I am puzzled by a point which no doubt the Lord Advocate will be able to answer.
If the contention of the Lord Advocate were to pick up Section 8 (3) of the principal Act and add "liquidator," we could understand it; but the last words of this new Clause seek to repeal the provisions of Section 8 (3) of the principal Act. That subsection, on examination, proves to relate to a person having control of a house, and then follow the limitations. It will occur to the Committee that there is a tremendous jump not only in relation to the liquidator, but to the subjects treated, between the proviso as laid down in the principal Act, for which the Labour Government were responsible, and this new Clause, which does not deal exclusively with houses or with a certain class of people having


responsibility exclusively for houses. It goes much wider; it states:
… the rents of any premises, being a … building which contains a house or a part of such a building, the expenses incurred by the authority in the execution of works in relation to the premises …
If we turn to the long Title of the Bill. which, I submit, quite clearly limits not only our deliberations, but the subject matter, there is no mention whatever of any type of property other than a house.
As one who has always been very cautious about procedure, this seems to me to be an extraordinary jump. I should have thought that if the Long Title refers specifically to houses, then they must be exclusively the subject of the Bill. I am puzzled by what device the Lord Advocate has suddenly introduced another subject when the Long Title seems to me to exclude it. I do not expect the right hon. and learned Gentleman to answer on the spur of the moment, but I hope that he will tell us, because, unless I have misunderstood the subject, this is an interesting constitutional point.
Even if the Lord Advocate could justify it, he would have great difficulty in persuading my hon. Friends that we shall deal with liquidators of any type of property by this curious back-door procedure. It would seem, from the intention of the Government, from the side heading of the Clause and from the preceding Sections in the principal Act, that we are dealing only with house property and with certain classes of people for whom the Committee will have every sympathy, and to whom my hon. and learned Friend drew attention.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed a little impatient. He explained to us that if a good liquidator took control, all would be well. But a good liquidator takes control of the situation meantime, without any help from this Clause. It is true that he will usually recommend a course which is in the interest of the community, but the good liquidator will not be made better by this Clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that where the good liquidator comes in, we may be certain that he responds to the needs of the community. We all know that. But my hon. Friends, who gave most alarming

examples, are concerned about the bad liquidator.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not told us how the new Clause protects the local authorities at the expense of the bad liquidator. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may tell us that he has discovered powers by which he can prosecute the people. I hope that those powers always existed. I cannot see that any alteration here makes any difference to the right to prosecute. That has nothing to do with the question addressed to the Lord Advocate, which is, "Does he not agree that by this back door method of amendment—not to this Bill because this question goes much wider than that"—

The Lord Advocate: No.

Mr. McNeil: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us why.

The Lord Advocate: It would save time if the right hon. Gentleman finished his speech first.

Mr. McNeil: The right hon. and learned Gentleman shows me great courtesy. I hope that it will be justified.
It would seem to us that, far from seeking power to deal with a dilemma existing from trusteeship being exerted over the premises, the Lord Advocate has opened the door wide for the swindling liquidator of any type of property. He has failed to tell the Committee what advantage to the community or the local authority is given by the new Clause in the handling of a very slippery customer.
It would seem from the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley and the arguments of my other hon. Friends that, though it is not intended by the Government, the new Clause is a wide open invitation to the bad liquidator to come in and unload, easily and apparently legally, his clients' disabilities. Obviously, no one wants that to happen. I repeat that I do not think that the Government want it.
The other types of people provided for in the new Clause are people with whom we are all familiar from the previous Act. They are reasonably well known, although I do not pretend to know exactly what they all are. We have met them before as custodians of one kind or


another—probably honourable and certainly legal custodians. If the Lord Advocate had intended to repeat the safeguards for them which appear in the principal Act, that would have been understandable, but he has gone much wider. I hope that he will agree that he owes the Committee a lengthier explanation than he has yet offered. I hope that he will explain how, despite the long Title, this apparent extension of the subject matter of the Bill is permissible.

8.45 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: The main worry in the minds of several hon. Members opposite has been about the practice, which I know is alleged in certain quarters, of what has been described as the fraudulent use of a company by forming it and then putting it into liquidation in order to get rid of property. As far as I have followed the speeches which have been made, the argument seems to be that if we omit the liquidator from the Clause we shall in some way or other improve the situation with respect to fraudulent bankruptcies and make them less likely. Unfortunately, the omission of the liquidator from the Clause will in no way affect the number of fraudulent company liquidations; the Clause was not designed to remedy that evil, and could not possibly do so.
The object of the Clause, so far as the liquidators are concerned, is not to discourage the good type of liquidator from undertaking the responsibility of winding up such companies, but to make sure that the standard of our liquidators remains high, and that if fraudulent practices take place, they will be reported to the proper quarters so that the proper punishment shall thereby ensue.
The presence or absence of reference to the liquidator in the Clause will not affect the evil which is complained about, namely, the formation of these companies. The object of including liquidators in the Clause was to secure that, as far as possible, the standard of the liquidator that we got was as high as possible. Most liquidators are appointed by the court. So far as the recent decision in the Sheriff Court in Glasgow stands, these liquidators—this was the apprehension which was represented to

us—might well not be prepared to undertake the responsibility if they were going to be landed with personal liability as the result merely of their being appointed liquidators. That is the reason and justification for their inclusion along with the other people in a fiduciary capacity.
What I have said answers the criticism uttered by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) and one of the points put by the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil).
The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) asked me where the money was to be found to meet the expenses of the local authority if the liquidators were to be limited merely to the amount of the funds in their hands. In the case of a trust or a company which is in the hands of a liquidator, any funds in the hands of the trustees or the liquidator would be available under the Clause. If there were no such funds, then funds belonging either to the beneficiary under the trust or to the company under liquidation would still be available to meet the claims of the local authority for expenses. Consequently, the local authorities are not being put in a worse position under the Clause than they are in at present.

Mr. Hoy: Suppose the funds are exhausted and there is no more money to meet the cost of the repairs which have been carried out, and the cost has to be met somewhere. Will the outstanding debt then fall on the local authority which ordered the repairs to be carried out?

The Lord Advocate: If funds are available in the hands of the liquidator, the company, one of the beneficiaries or the trustee, under the Clause they will undoubtedly still be available to the local authority to meet its liabilities. If, of course, there are no funds and the property is not worth anything, there would be no source from which the local authority could recover the money, with the possible exception of the beneficial owner of the property.

Mr. Hoy: So that, as, I think, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree, the burden would then fall on the local authority or the ratepayers. If that is so, I ask a further question. If it is agreed that the local authority would


have to meet that debt, will the local authority receive any compensation from the Government, or must the whole burden be carried by the ratepayers through the local rates?

The Lord Advocate: The situation under the Bill is this. If the local authority chooses to spend money on the property when there is no means of their recovering the money, because the property is worthless or the people interested in it have no assets, the local authority and the ratepayers will have to meet that liability.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In the last resort, then, as I argued, this Clause will place a further financial burden upon the local authority, and therefore, on the ratepayers.

The Lord Advocate: I do not agree with that.
I turn from that point—

Mr. McNeil: I think I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument clearly. He says that that would be a charge on the local rates. Is any part of that charge acceptable to the Government? I would think so.

The Lord Advocate: This is getting rather far away from the Clause. If the local authority takes over the property, part of it would become a Government liability.

Mr. McNeil: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman direct my attention to any provision in the Financial Resolution for this?

The Lord Advocate: It is the 50–50 liability between the local authority and the Government and the £7 10s. I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the two Clauses upon which we are spending hours and hours quite needlessly.
If I may turn from that to what 1 think was the only other point raised with regard to this matter—

Mr. McNeil: I am sorry to interrupt again, but if this relates only to unfit property, I have no difficulty in understanding where it is covered in the Financial Resolution, but when the right hon. and learned Gentleman directs his

argument to premises, which is a much wider term, and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman told us there will be an obligation on the Government, I still do not know where, in the Financial Resolution, there is any reference to it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong in directing my attention to these two Clauses.

The Lord Advocate: The houses are unfit houses.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Lord Advocate: I cannot deal with everything at once. I have been trying—

Mr. McNeil: rose—

The Lord Advocate: I have sat down time after time in favour of the right hon. Gentleman.

The Chairman: Order.

The Lord Advocate: It is not that I have not got an answer to the point put to me. [Interruption.] There is no need to get so heated.
If I may turn to the other point—

Mr. McNeil: Deal now with the point I put.

The Lord Advocate: If I were permitted, despite all the interjections, to say a few words, I would endeavour to deal with the point. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will criticise it afterwards, but he might at least give me the opportunity of stating it.
The point is this. We are dealing with unfit houses in cases where the local authority gives directions to do repairs. It is in that connection that the liability for expense may arise. Clauses 4 and 5 could apply in regard to these houses, and consequently the 50–50 allocation would apply. Consequently, the Government contribution would come in.
Perhaps I may turn to the other point about the ambit of the proposed new Clause and whether it goes outside the terms of the Bill. I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to Clauses 2 and 4, both of which deal with buildings in which there is a house, and it is with this that we are concerned in the limited liability of trustees for the expenses of local authorities. I am advised that the proposed new Clause is


not outside the long Title of the Bill, and does not cover a field already covered by one or other of the existing Clauses.

Mr. McNeil: Now can I try to interpret the right hon. and learned Gentleman in non-technical language? He is telling the Committee that the relaxations in the proposed new Clause cover only unfit houses in relation to various classes of custodian, and that the relaxations do not cover any other property owned by those named—trustees, factors, curators, and so forth. Unfit houses are the proper concern of the Bill. In that case I would have thought it easier not to repeal the proviso to Section 8 (3) of the principal Act, but merely to confine the Amendment to the point about a liquidator.

The Lord Advocate: I will show how the difficulty arises. The right hon. Gentleman will see, in the fourth line of the proposed new Clause, the words:
The rents of any premises, being a house or a building which contains a house.
That is the ambit of the proposed new Clause.

Mr. Steele: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say again whether the proposed new Clause applies only to Clauses 2 and 4? In point of fact, the proposed new Clause starts by saying:
Where in pursuance of any enactment (whether contained in a public general Act or in a local Act).
It is rather unusual that the Lord Advocate should try to make this Committee believe that those words apply to Clauses 2 and 4. Can he say something about that?

Mr. Hoy: On a point of order. The Committee is in some difficulty about the proposed new Clause. I would refer to the Financial Resolution, which talks about
areas of unfit housing accommodation, and for securing or promoting the reconditioning and maintenance of houses.
The long Title of the Bill says that the Bill is
for securing or promoting the reconditioning and maintenance of houses—
which, again, is quite specific.
9.0 p.m.
The new Clause refers to
the rents of any premises, being a house or a building which contains a house or a part of such a building, …

That seems to go extremely wide indeed. I cannot help feeling that this new Clause considerably widens the scope of the Bill.
If we are to discuss this we are entitled to find out whether the Financial Resolution makes provision for the type of cases in which these premises can be included. The whole of the Committee seems very doubtful about the matter. Before we proceed further, Sir Charles, perhaps you might care to rule whether this new Clause comes within the provisions of the Financial Resolution laid down in connection with the Bill, or extends it so widely that the financial provisions do not cover the cases which the Secretary of State seeks to include within the new Clause.

The Chairman: I am in some difficulty. When I was having my conference about the Bill this did not strike me at all. Of course, I must take responsibility. I can only say that the Public Bill Office checks these things very carefully and, apparently, no such question at all came to mind. All I can do is, offhand, to give a layman's ruling. I should imagine that if the premises spoken of in the new Clause come under rent control—

Mr. Hoy: They do not.

The Chairman: Then we must get the Lord Advocate to explain. I tell you, quite frankly, that I do not know.

Mr. Hoy: With the greatest respect, Sir Charles, I can very well understand the difficulty which this must present to the Chair. Within the ambit of this Clause there would be certain extensive property, such as shops and other types of industrial building which do not come within the ambit of the Rent Restrictions Acts. It was because of the suggestion that this particular Clause goes well outside the financial provisions that I thought it well to raise it now. It may be that you require to have some advice. We can well understand that and make no complaint about it, but in order to get a clear explanation we wish to press this.

The Chairman: I had better ask the Lord Advocate to explain.

Mr. McNeil: It was because I realised the delicacy of your position, Sir Charles, that I put precisely this point to the Lord Advocate earlier. I had hoped that he might have answered with his usual quietness—everyone is capable of making


a mistake and I only asked for interpretation—but instead, the response to my being so kind and tolerant was a bucketful of abuse.

The Lord Advocate: I had no intention of giving the right hon. Gentleman abuse—far less a bucketful of it. I certainly was not aware that I had done so.
In the first place, no question of Exchequer grant arises, and, therefore, no question of the Financial Resolution arises. I think that the conclusive answer to the whole matter is that in at least two places—and in several others I am sure, although I have not had time to look—the language of the Bill amply covers the type of premises referred to in the new Clause. Indeed, the new Clause merely echoes the words of certain other Clauses. Clause 2 (1) refers to
… any building on land purchased by or belonging to the authority within that area, being a building which is or which contains a house which in the opinion of the authority, having regard to its existing condition … must be continued in use…
We have there in that Clause the very words used in the new Clause—[Interruption.] Please let me finish. As I was about to say, we have the very words used, with the exception of the use of the word "premises" in the new Clause, in place of "building on land" in Clause 2.
Therefore, the ambit of Clause 2 is precisely the same as the ambit of the new Clause. If Clause 2, as it undoubtedly is, is within the terms of the long Title, equally the new Clause falls within them. The same type of house is described in Clause 4. Accordingly, as far as I can see, there is no substance in the suggestion that this new Clause goes beyond the type of houses covered by the Bill and the long Title.

Mr. T. Fraser: I think the Lord Advocate will require to take some further legal advice upon this new Clause. May I have the Lord Advocate's attention and the attention of the Joint Undersecretary of State? If their conference is finished I should like very much to have their attention. The Lord Advocate said a short time ago that in as much as a local authority would incur certain expenses under this new Clause the matter was provided for in the Financial Resolution, and then he made an offhand reference to the 50–50 contribution of the

Exchequer and the local authority, and £7 5s. per year for 15 years—in respect of what? In respect of each unfit house taken over by the local authority and patched up and continued in occupation.
Nobody believes that this new Clause is limited to that type of property. This new Clause, if it is anything at all, is surely an extension of Section 8 of the Act of 1950. I have yet to hear in what respect the Act of 1950 falls short in protecting those trustees, curators, agents and other persons who have temporary custody of property owned by somebody else. Let me quote the proviso that the new Clause takes out, the proviso to Section 8 of the Act of 1950:
Provided that if the person having control of the house proves—

(i) that he is receiving the rent merely as trustee, tutor, curator, factor or agent for some other person; and
(ii) that he has not, and since the date of the service on him of the demand has not had, in his hands on behalf of that other person sufficient money to discharge the whole demand of the authority,

his liability shall be limited to the total amount of the money which he has, or has had, in his hands as aforesaid.
As we understand it, those factors or agents acting on behalf of someone else are protected already in Section 8 of the 1950 Act. We ask ourselves why there is this new Clause at all.
When we look at the new Clause, we discover first that it is extended to property other than houses. It would not be amiss to have regard to the long Title of the Bill, to which the Clause is proposed to be added, and I propose to read the long Title. It says that the Bill is to
Make further provision as respects Scotland for the clearance and redevelopment of areas of unfit housing accommodation, and for securing or promoting the reconditioning and maintenance of houses, and otherwise to amend the enactments relating to housing and rent control; to provide for disregarding for the purposes of valuation and rating increases in the rent of certain houses in respect of expenditure incurred in reconditioning and maintaining those houses; to limit the rates payable by owners of rent-controlled houses; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
That is the long Title of the Bill which we are seeking to amend, and to which the Government propose to add the Clause.
The Clause, therefore, must have to deal with houses such as are mentioned in the long Title, with matters connected


with valuation and rating, the limitation of rates payable by owners of rent con trolled houses, or matters connected with these' things. I cannot, of course, put myself up as an authority against the Public Bill Office in deciding whether a Clause is competent—

The Chairman: I am responsible.

Mr. Fraser: I am sorry, Sir Charles. Perhaps I am at fault, and I apologise. But the Lord Advocate is the competent authority, who has the duty of advising not only the Government in these matters, but has the duty in relation to a Scottish Bill of advising this Committee of the whole House of Commons.
The new Clause begins:
Where in pursuance of any enactment"—
not "this Act," not even "this Act and the principal Act of 1950," but "any enactment"—
(whether contained in a public general Act or in a local Act) a local authority seek to recover from any person as being the person for the time being entitled to receive, or who would if the same were let be entitled to receive, the rents of any premises, being a house or a building which contains a house or a part of such a building, the expenses incurred by the authority in the execution of works in relation to the premises, then, if that person proves—
Subsection (1) goes on broadly to pick up the words contained in the proviso to Section 8 (3) of the principal Act, which subsection (3) of the Clause proposes to strike out.
As I understand it—I have not only consulted local authorities, but I have looked at the parent Act of 1950—this is the position. A local authority incurs those expenses, upon which the Clause seeks to impose a limitation in respect of certain persons, by carrying out certain works and buildings. Hitherto, those works have been carried out upon unfit houses as provided for in Sections 7 and 8 of the 1950 Act. The local authority finds that a house is unfit. It serves a notice upon the owner of the property, and he does not respond so that the local authority goes to the sheriff. Ultimately, the local authority, having got an order from the sheriff and the owner of the property having failed within 21 days to give effect to the order, may carry out the works itself and recover the expense from the owner of the property.
9.15 p.m.
We are not dealing with houses under this Bill which are going to be taken over by the local authority. We are dealing with houses which are to remain in private hands even though an order has been given by the sheriff and the owner has not given effect to that order. The Lord Advocate will admitt that in this Clause in addition the local authority can carry out works not only upon unfit houses but upon whole blocks of property which happen to contain unfit houses but which also contain shops and offices.
So far as I know under the existing law there is no provision for a local authority under a court order to incur expenses on repairing shops and offices. But under this new Clause the Government seems to envisage that a local authority, having unfit property within its area, will serve a notice upon the owner or owners—because there may be many of them as the selling of slum property that has gone on in Scotland in recent years would suggest—to carry out certain works. If the works are not carried out the local authority will go to the sheriff court. The sheriff will make an order. The owner or the various owners acting collectively will fail to give effect to the court order. The Government seem to envisage under this Clause that the local authority will carry out the work itself, not only the work on unfit houses but upon the repair of unfit shops and offices which form part of the building.
That can only be the reason for extending the definition in subsection (1) of the new Clause. There is also to be a limitation upon the right of recovery by the factor or agent in like manner as there is in the case of unfit houses as is provided in the proviso to Section 8 (3) of the 1950 Act. If I am right in that assumption, I cannot see why it was necessary to have this new Clause. Those or us who are offering criticism of it must not be accused of seeking to take away protection which the Government are seeking to give to the trustee or the curator, the factor or the agent. All those people have protection under Section 8 of the 1950 Act.
We cannot think why the Government need to introduce this new Clause to


repeal the present protection and to pretend at the same time that they are offering a protection to those people who are acting as trustees or agents for people who happen to own old and derelict slum property. They are protected already inasmuch as they are merely collecting the rents of unfit houses.
I feel annoyed that the Government have not been able to offer a satisfactory explanation. The learned Lord Advocate is the only Law Officer we have for Scotland in this House and it is shocking that he should justify this new Clause by saying that the local authorities were protected and the ratepayers were protected by the Money Resolution which provided for the 50–50 contribution by the Exchequer.
This has nothing to do with the properties getting the contribution provided under the Financial Resolution. If the Lord Advocate did not know that, and was so ill-informed as to suppose that the Financial Resolution to this Bill had no relation to this new Clause, I submit that he is not a competent person to offer it to the Committee. The case for it has not been made out.
I am not trained in the law, but I have been long enough in this House, and long enough looking at statutes in the making, to know that this new Clause does two things. It adds other premises to unfit houses as properties in respect of which the liability of the factor and the trustee shall be limited, and it adds liquidator to the other categories set out in Section 8 (3) of the 1950 Act. In my view it is incompetent to do that in terms of the Long Title of this Bill.
It is monstrous that the Government should offer this new Clause with these two changes in the law without explaining carefully to the Committee that those were the only two changes they were seeking to make in the law, and that the factors and the trustees, the agents and the curators were already protected under Section 8 of the 1950 Act which this new Clause seeks to repeal.
I hope that the Government spokesman will not merely get up and try further to explain this Bill to the Committee, but will say that the Government appreciate that they have made a mistake in bringing forward this new Clause and that they undertake to take it back and not seek to thrust it upon the Committee.

The Lord Advocate: I do not want to delay the Committee unnecessarily by a further elaboration of what I thought, obviously wrongly, was clear enough. The main criticism that seems to be made still is that the category of subject that is covered by the Clause is very much wider than the category covered by the Bill. That criticism is completely unfounded. The category of subjects covered by the Clause is precisely the category that is included, for example, in Clauses 2 and 4. Consequently, to suggest that the Clause, which is designed to limit the liability of those persons who are in a fiduciary capacity, including liquidators, is going outside the ambit of the Bill, is an argument not based on sound premises.

Mr. McNeil: I should like to take up the point of order which was raised earlier.

The Chairman: The last point of order was raised when my predecessor was in the Chair. If the right hon. Gentleman rises to that point of order, I hope that he will make it short, so that we can understand it.

Mr. McNeil: With great respect, we tried to make it short earlier but my point of order, further to that which was raised earlier, is to ask whether you, Sir Charles, will explain the competence of this new Clause in relation to the Title of the Bill, and particularly in relation to a phrase of which the Lord Advocate has taken no note at all. The Lord Advocate perhaps is tired and over-worked.

The Lord Advocate: Not a bit. I was merely laying papers on the Table. If I did it more noisily than otherwise, surely the right hon. Gentleman is not so touchy as to be affected by that.

Mr. McNeil: I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was trying to make up for the lightness of his opinion by the heaviness of his papers.
The phrase to which the Lord Advocate has never addressed himself is:
Where in pursuance of any enactment (whether contained in a public general Act or in a local Act) …
I submit that if this Clause were to deal with any other type of housing than that referred to in Clauses 2 and 4 and in the long Title, then the allusion to any enactment must refer to other types of property.

The Chairman: The scope of the Bill is not confined to the Long Title and I rule that there is no question that the new Clause is within the Bill.

Mr. Woodburn: And the Money Resolution?

The Chairman: I am not discussing the Money Resolution. I am talking about the scope of the Bill and my Ruling is that the new Clause is covered by the Long Title plus the contents of the Bill. As to the word "premises," I am not a lawyer and perhaps the Lord Advocate will correct me if I am wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members should wait until I have finished. I should have thought as a layman that "premises" is not any wider than "any building on land." If that is correct, then everything is all right.

Mr. McNeil: I am very willing to be advised by you, Sir Charles, and in order that we might put the discussion easily in order—and it is a very important point—I beg to move that, "The Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
I do so not because I am anxious about the Government's intentions at this stage but because I think that it would be fair to them in view of this curious digression. To revert to your definition, which was admirable, Sir Charles, I understood you to say that you thought that "any premises" was not wider than "any building on land" and there could be no further doubt about this new Clause which the Government are seeking to introduce. As I understand the intention of the Government, it is not to deal with buildings on land, but, according to the Lord Advocate, it is to deal with certain types of premises.

9.30 p.m.

The Chairman: The right hon. Member must not question my Ruling, which I have stated quite clearly.

Mr. McNeil: I am not questioning your Ruling, but it will be obvious to you, Sir Charles, that this Clause deals with a wider subject than the one which previously we have been discussing. Quite plainly "any premises" on your Ruling does not refer only to those premises which you think are competent

and covered by the Housing Act, but to any premises covered by the phrase:
Where in pursuance of any enactment (whether contained in a public general Act or in a local Act).
This is the first opportunity we have had of discussing this Clause and it would be highly useful if the Government told us at this stage what local enactment—

The Chairman: The Motion I am being asked to consider is to report Progress. That is all that can be discussed at the moment. We cannot go back and discuss this new Clause.

Mr. McNeil: Again subject to your Ruling, Sir Charles, I should have thought that a very good subject on which to report Progress was to discuss the consequences of this new Clause which the Government have introduced and which, previous to these statements. I at any rate have not understood. I should like to know what the intention of the Government is in relation, for example, to the time-table, in view of this much wider scope given to the Bill. I should have thought that in explaining my difficulty I was explaining quite competently why we should have some guidance from the Government at this stage, and that that was in order. I am not questioning your Ruling, Sir Charles, but am assuming that your Ruling applies, as it should do. Therefore, we are going to have an entirely new situation from that contemplated at any stage in the proceedings on this Bill. If that is so, I think the Government owe an explanation to the Committee why they were driven to this extension. They owe an explanation to the Committee, for example, as to what local enactment they are worried about—

The Chairman: We cannot discuss that on the Motion to report Progress.

Mr. McNeil: You have been very kind, Sir Charles, but I am having considerable difficulty. It put it to you that there must be some method available to the Opposition by which it can ask the Government to explain how their intentions are affected by this dramatic extension of the Bill which has never been mentioned at any stage.

The Lord Advocate: It does not exist.

Mr. McNeil: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that it does not exist. He declined an invitation which I offered him before to say that his intention was only to concern himself with unfit property. If he had done so, we would not be in this position. I am not grumbling, as perhaps he was not able to do so, but I am asking your guidance, Sir Charles, to find a way in which the Opposition can deal with this novel and, from our point of view, disturbing situation. If within the framework of explaining broadly what their intentions are towards further work on this Bill the Government could take up what they mean to do about the Clause which we will have to go on considering, I am sure my hon. Friends and I would be indebted to them.

The Chairman: To begin with, I have ruled, and I stand very firmly by my Ruling, that the Clause is within the scope of the Bill; and, therefore, there is nothing in the nature of what the right hon. Gentleman described as a "dramatic extension" of the Bill.

Mr. McNeil: With respect, Sir Charles, I said that the Government, up to this moment in the Committee proceedings, have never talked about any "local Act." I am trying to get them to tell us what are the local Acts and the general Acts other than the Housing Act which they have in mind. I am not intending to say that any new situation arises. To do so would be discourteous and stupid of me as being a challenge to your Ruling, which I am not attempting.

The Chairman: To the best of my knowledge the new Clause comes, as I say, within the scope of the Bill. I am not a lawyer, and the best I can do with the English language is to say that "premises" is not wider than "any building on land." That being so, I cannot accept a Motion to report Progress. The matter is perfectly straightforward to my mind. I was perhaps rather slow in not fully appreciating the position at the start of the discussion, but my view is that there is no need for the Motion, and I shall not accept it.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Before you decide finally whether you can accept the Motion or not, Sir Charles, may I put to you a point which has troubled me for a considerable time as I have listened

to the discussion? My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) feels that the whole Committee, including yourself, is in a great difficulty, first, because of the doubt, which you have realised, not only as to whether the new Clause comes within the scope of the Bill, but whether it comes within the scope of the Financial Resolution.
With great respect, I desire to submit that there is considerable doubt about it. You were frank enough to say, Sir Charles, that you had not had an opportunity of considering the point before it was first put to you by my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy). Having since then looked at the new Clause I am bound to say that there is, to say the least, the greatest possible doubt whether it comes within the scope of the Financial Resolution.

The Chairman: I have ruled that it does come within its scope.

Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate that you have given that Ruling, Sir Charles, but in doing so, I think you also expressed a view that it was a matter of some doubt.

The Chairman: What I said was that I was shot at suddenly, but discussion on this point having gone on for a long time, I have had an opportunity to make inquiries; and, while I was in doubt when the discussion began, I am in no doubt now. I have given my Ruling. It may be wrong, but I am not going to change it.

Mr. Fletcher: The whole Committee, of course, accept your Ruling, Sir Charles, that the new Clause, is within the scope of the Financial Resolution. May I, how ever, put it to you, that the Committee is now faced with the problem of considering whether that new Clause should be added to the Bill, or not? A number of my hon. Friends—

The Chairman: As a matter of fact, we are considering whether the new Clause should be read a Second time, or not.

Mr. Fletcher: Before the Committee can decide whether the new Clause should be read a Second time, they will have to consider not only the merits of the new Clause itself but also its financial effects. If it comes within the terms of the Financial Resolution we shall have to consider what is its financial effect. We have to consider it not only on its merits, but in


relation to the Financial Resolution on which the whole Bill is based, and my right hon. Friend is seeking your permission to move to report Progress—

The Chairman: And I have said that I am not prepared to accept that Motion.

Mr. Fletcher: Well, then, I am driven to talk about the Clause itself. But before coming to the Clause I should have liked to make this observation—

The Chairman: I shall be quite happy if the hon. Gentleman talks about the Clause. May I take it that he has now concluded his remarks on the point of order?

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, Sir Charles, I think it is now quite clear that you have ruled that this proposed new Clause is within the terms both of the long Title to the Bill and the Financial Resolution. Therefore, we must now consider the proposal on that basis, but I wanted, first of all, to say a few words about the financial effect of this proposed new Clause.
As I read it, one of the results of this new Clause being added to the Bill will be to increase the liability of local authorities; not only that, but it will also increase the liability of the Exchequer, and that is a serious matter. No estimate has been given of what is likely to be the burden so imposed and I had hoped that the Lord Advocate, or one of the representatives of the Scottish Office would tell us something about the financial effect of this new Clause before we proceed much further.
How much will it add to the burden of local authorities in Scotland if these various persons are relieved from the liability to contribute to the expenses incurred by local authorities in the repair not only of unfit houses but, I gather, of houses of all kinds and descriptions and of buildings as well?
We are also entitled to know, I think, not only what will be the burden on local authorities in Scotland, but how much of that burden will be met by the Exchequer. As a Member for an English constituency I make no apology for raising this matter. It is no fault of mine that we are now considering it in Committee of the whole House. As I said earlier, it would have been much better had this matter been considered by the

Scottish Grand Committee. Had it been carefully considered by that Committee we should not have been sitting now. The Scottish Grand Committee would have adjourned after two or three hours—

The Chairman: We have already decided that point, and we cannot go back.

Mr. Fletcher: I agree. I was merely saying that it is through no fault of mine, but because of the decision imposed on the House by the Government that I am being driven to apply my mind to these difficult matters of Scottish law. I should have preferred not to do so, but it has become my duty because the Government insist on this matter being considered in Committee of the whole House.
If I am asked to express a view and to vote on this matter I think I am entitled, before doing so, to know what it means, to be able to understand k and to receive a coherent explanation about it from the Lord Advocate or the Secretary of State for Scotland. I do not know what goes on in the Scottish Grand Committee, but now we are in Committee of the whole House it does not seem to be good enough that we should have these very feeble, unintelligible explanations of the new Clause that we have so far heard.
I am more than puzzled, not only for the reasons given to my right hon. and hon. Friends, but also because not a word has yet been said to explain the financial implications of this new Clause. I hope that the Lord Advocate will tell us what it means. Obviously, it imposes a burden on the local authorities. The whole object of the new Clause is to relieve certain named persons from the liability which would otherwise fall upon them of contributing to the expenses of local authorities.
When other Clauses of the Bill were considered, some estimates of expenses were given. We then knew that we were dealing with certain specified properties, notably areas of unfit housing accommodation. The new Clause, although within the terms of the Financial Resolution and the scope of the Bill, proceeds to a whole new category of property about which we have not yet heard what are the limits of expenditure.
9.45 p.m.
It would not be reasonable to ask the Committee to entertain a consideration of the new Clause, which goes far beyond


the scope of any other Clause in the Bill, unless we know what are the financial implications. There must be some. What are the intentions of the Government about those Scottish houses outside the areas of unfit housing accommodation? To what extent is it intended that local authorities should incur expenses in the execution of works in relation to premises which are not in areas of unfit housing accommodation? To what extent is it intended that they should be remiss in collecting the contribution that would otherwise be due?
We are entitled to know what sort of amount is inolved and how much of the cost that will fall upon Scottish local authorities will, under the Exchequer contribution arrangement, ultimately come back on the Exchequer. These are the

questions which are worrying me, apart from all the other points which are, naturally, of close and intimate concern to all my Scottish friends.

It was for these reasons that I was hoping that we should have far more intimation about what the Clauses means, why it is promoted and what is involved in it I should like to hear more before I, for one, feel able to vote on the matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepbnrn): rose in his place, and claimed to move. "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 206; Noes. 191.

Division
AYES
[9.47 p.m.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Fisher, Nigel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Alport, C. J. M.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Arbuthnot, John
Foster, John
McKibbin, A. J.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Baldook, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Maclean, Fitzroy


Baldwin, A. E.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (HilIhead)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Banks, Col. C.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horneastle)


Barlow, Sir John
Glover, D.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Baxter, A. B.
Godber. J. B.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Gomme-Duncan, Col A
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Gough, C. F. H.
Maude, Angus


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Mellor, Sir John


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Molson, A. H. E.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Bishop, F. P.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Black, C W.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Maoolesfield)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Boothby, Sir R. J. G
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Neave, Airey


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Hay, John
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Heath, Edward
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Brooke. Henry (Hampstead)
Henderson, John (Cathoart)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Oakshott, H. D.


Browne Jack (Govan)
Hlnchingbrooke, Viscount
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt Hon P G. T
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Bullard, D. G.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Butcher, Sir Herber
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


Carr, Robert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Page, R. G.


Cary, Sir Robert
Howard, Gerald (Cambrldgeshire)
Peake, Rt. Hon. 0.


Channon, H.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Perkins, Sir Robert


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Clyda, Rt Hon J L
Hurt, A. R.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A


Cole, Norman
Hutohison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Conant, Maj. R J E
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Powell, J. Enoch


Cooper-Key, E. M
Hylton-Foster, H. B H.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorm)
Iremonger, T. L.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H. F C
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Profumo, J. D.


Crouoh, R. F
Johnson, Erio (Bkokley)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Crowder, Sir Johr, (Finehley)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Ramsden, J. E.


Crowder, Petre (Ruisle Northwood)
Kerr, H. W.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Redmayne, M.


Davidson, Viscountesi
Lambton, Viscount
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Deedes, W. F.
Lanoaster, Col. C. G.
Renton, D. L. M.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Douglas-Hamiton, Lord Malcolm
Lennox-Boyd, Rl. Hon. A. T.
Robertson, Sir David


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Roper, Sir Harold


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Finlay, Graeme
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Russell, R. S




Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Scott, R. Donald
Studholme, H. G.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Summers, G. S.
Wall, P. H. B.


Shepherd, William
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Ward, Miss I. (Tynmouth)


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Smithers, Peter (Winohester)
Teeling, W.
Watkinson, H. A:


Snadden, W. McN.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Well wood, W.


Spearman, A. C. M.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmnouth)
Wills, G.


Stevens, G. P.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Touche, Sir Gordon



Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Turner, H. F. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Turton, R. H.
Mr. Vosper and Mr. Kaberry.


Storey, S.
Tweedsmuir, Lady





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Hayman, F. H.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Adams, Richard
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Proctor, W. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Herbison, Miss M.
Pryde, D. J.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Hobson, C. R.
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Holman, P.
Rankin, John


Awbery, S. S.
Holmes, Horace
Reeves, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Holt, A. F.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Bence, C. R.
Houghton, Douglas
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Hoy, J. H.
Rhodes, H.


Benson, G.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Paneras, N.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Blyton, W. R.
Hynd, J B. (Attertliffe)
Ross, William


Boardman, H.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Shacklelon, E. A. A.


Bowden, H. W.
Janner, B.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Bowen, E R.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Short, E. W.


Brockway, A. F.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Broughton, Dr A. D. D.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Skeffington, A. M.


Burke, W. A.
Janes, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Callaghan, L. J.
Keenan, W.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Carmichael, J.
Kenyon, C.
Sorensen, R. W.


Champion, A. J.
King, Dr. H. M
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Chapman, W G
Kinley, J.
Sparks, J. A.


Clunie, J.
Lawson, G. M.
Steele, T.


Coldrick, W.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stewart, Michael (Futham, E.)


Collick, P. H
Lewis, Arthur
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Corbet, Mrs Freda
Lindgren, G. S.
Summerskili, Rt. Hon. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S)
Logan, D. G.
Sylvester, G. 0.


Crosland, C. A. R.
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Crossman, R. H. S
McGovem, J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Cullen, Mrs A.
Mclnnes, J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McLeavy, F.
Thornton, E.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Timmons, J.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Deer, G.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Viant, S. P.


Delargy, H. J.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Warbey, W. N.


Dodds, N. N.
Manuel, A. C.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H A
Weitzman, D


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mason, Roy
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fernyhough, E.
Mellish, R. J.
West, D. G.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mitchison, G. R
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Foot, M. M.
Moody, A. S.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Forman, J. C.
Morley, R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moyle, A.
Wigg, George


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mulley, F. W.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Gibson, C. W.
Murray, J. D.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
WilIey, F. T.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, David (Neath)


Grey, C. F.
Oswald, T.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Padley, W. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y>


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Willis, E G.


Grimond, J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hale, Leslie
Palmer, A. M. F.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Woodbum, Rt. Hon. A.


Hamilton, W. W.
Parker, J.
Yarts, V. F.


Hannan, W.
Peart, T. F.



Hargreaves, A.
Plummer, Sir Lestie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Popplewell, E.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. John Taylor.


Hastings, S.
Porter, G.

Question put accordingly.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 187.

Division No. 99.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Alport, C. J. M.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W J
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Pilkington, Capt. R A


Arbuthnot, John
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. B. (Blackburn, W)
Hay, John
Powell, J. Enoch


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Heath, Edward
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O L


Baldwin, A. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Profumo, J. D.


Banks, Col. C.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Barlow, Sir John
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ramsden, J. E.


Baxter, A. B.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rayner, Brig. R


Beach, Mai. Hicks
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Redmayne, M.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Holt, A. F.
Rees-Davies, W R


Bonnett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Renton, D. L. M


Bennett, Wlliam (Woodtide)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Bishop, F. P.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Robertson, Sir David


Black, C. W.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Boothby, Sir R. J. G
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Roper, Sir Harold


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Hurd, A. R.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bowen, E. R.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Russell, R. S.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hylton-Foster, H. B H
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
lremonger, T. L.
Scott, R. Donald


Brooman-Wtiite, R. C.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwieh)
Scott-Miller, Comdr. R


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Shepherd, William


Buchan-Hepbum, Rt. Hon. P. G T
Kaberry, D.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Bullard, D. G.
Kerby, Capt. H. B
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Burden, F. F. A.
Kerr, H. W.
Snadden, W. McN.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Lambert, Hon. G.
Spearman, A. C. M


Carr, Robert
Lambton, Viscount
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S)


Channon, H.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T
Stevens, G. P.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Linstead, sir H. N.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cole, Norman
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Stoddart-Scort, Col. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Storey, S.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
MaCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Summers, G S.


Crouch, R. F.
McKibbin, A. J.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Maclay, Rt. Hon John
Teeling, W.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Davidson. Viscountess
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Deedes, W. F.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Maude, Angus
Touche, Sir Gordon


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Mellor, Sir John
Turner, H. F. L


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Molson, A. H. E.
Turton, R. H.


Finlay, Graeme
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Fisher, Nigel
Moore, Sir Thomas
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Vosper, D. F.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Neave, Airey
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Foster, John
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Wall, P. H. B.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemoutn)


Galbraitn, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon C


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Oakshott, H. D.
Watkinson, H. A.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Wellwood, W.


Glover, D.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Godber, J. B.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Williams, R Dudley (Exeter)


Gough, C. F. H.
Orr-Ewing, Sir tan (Weston-super-Mare)
Wills, G.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Page, R. G.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grimond, J.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.



Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Perkins, Sir Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Studholme and Mr. Legh.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Attleen, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Benson, G.


Adams, Richard
Awbery, S. S.
Bing, G. H. C.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Blackburn, F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bence, C. R.
Blenkinsop, A.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Blyton, W. R.




Boardman, H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rankin, John


Bowden, H. W.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reeves, J.


Brockway, A. F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Janner, B.
Rhodes, H.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butter, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Calfaghan, L. J.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Carmichael, J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Ross, William


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Clunie, J.
Keenan, w.
Short, E. W.


Coldrick, W.
Kenyon, C.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Collick, P. H.
King, Dr. H. M.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Kinley, J.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, G. M.
Skeffington, A. M.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lewis, Arthur
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Logan, D. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
MacColl, J. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McGovern, J.
Sparks, J. A.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mclnnes, J.
Steele, T.


Deer, G.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Delargy, H. J.
McLeavy, F.
Strachey, Rt. Hen. J.


Dodds, N. N.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sylvester, G. O.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fernyhough, E.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Fletcher, Erie (Islington, E).
Manuel, A. C.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Foot, M. M.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Forman, J. C.
Mason, Roy
Thornton, E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mellish, R. J.
Timmons, J.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mitchrson, G. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Gibson, C. W.
Moody, A. S.
Viant, S. P.


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morley, R.
Warbey, W. N.


Grey, C. F.
Moyle, A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mulley, F. W.
Weitzman, D.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Murray, J. D.
Wells, Peroy (Faversham)


Hale, Leslie
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
West, D. G.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Oliver, G. H.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flintt)


Hamilton, W. W.
Oswald, T.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hannan, W.
Padley, W. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hargreaves, A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wigg, George


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Paling, WHI T. (Dewsbury)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Hastings, S.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hayman, F. H.
Pargiter, G. A.
Willey, F. T.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Parker, J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Peart, T. F.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Herbison, Miss M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Hobson, C. R-
Popplewell, E.
Wiliis, E. G.


Holman, P.
Porter, G.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Holmes, Horace
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Winterbottom, Riohard (Brightside)


Houghton, Douglas
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hoy, J. H.
Proctor, W. T.
Yates, V. F.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Pryde, D. J.



Hughes, Emrys
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. John Taylor.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

Mr. McNeil: There are four groups of associated questions to which we thought we could reasonably expect an answer, but to which we have had no answer from the Lord Advocate.
There is first this interesting point that the Government decided to take this new Clause not on Report stage but on Recommittal. The reason for that decision was presumably that they recognised that it involved a financial burden. No doubt they foresaw that financial burden and estimated its dimensions. It is plain that

they foresaw the financial burden and it is equally plain that, as you clearly explained to us, Sir Charles, the Money Resolution covered the Clause. Perhaps the Government will therefore tell us what is the burden which necessitated this procedure, the dimensions of the burden, how they came to make the calculation, and how they came to have such wonderful vision in making provision in the Money Resolution for a possibility of this kind.
The second group of points, which I had already put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, is very important to an understanding of why we should add this Clause to the Bill. They arise from


the first line of the new Clause which we are about to add—or not to add—to the Bill. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that it is necessary to explain to the Committee what general Acts, and more particularly what local Acts, he had in mind when he wrote the Clause in this form. Plainly, had he been thinking only of these unfit houses which are covered by the Housing Acts, there was no need to write these words at all. He must, therefore, be thinking of another category of unfit houses which fall to be considered in this Bill, but which arise only under some general Act, or, more strangely, some local Act. I, in common with many of my hon. Friends, have had a fair experience of local government, but I admit, apologetically, that I cannot think of a Scottish local Act under which unfit houses are treated with the type of treatment laid down in Clauses 2 and 4. I have no doubt, however, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell the Committee candidly and in full to what Acts he is referring.
Third, did the new Clause arise from the definition of ownership in the Public Health Act, 1887? The Government seem to have had second and third and fourth thoughts. This new Clause seems to be the fourth thought. There was a Money Resolution that was not proceeded with, and then a second which represented second thoughts. We had more thoughts in Standing Committee, and some Amendments of which the Government gave us notice. This new Clause is a completely new one, and probably is a fourth thought.
It has been suggested to me—I am not sure whether it is right—that this fourth thought arose from representations from the Law Society. There is nothing improper in that, but I understand that the Law Society was concerned about the definition arising from the Public Health Act, 1887. If I am completely mistaken about that, no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman will put us right, because it is very important to understand that. It would be interesting historically if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were able to tell us whether or not the fourth thought of the Government arose from representations made by the Law Society and arising out of the

definition of ownership in the Public Health Act, 1887.
Finally, there are some phrases in the new Clause that it would be better that we understood. I can understand "trustee." "Factor" is in common usage in Scotland, but for the benefit of English Members it would be better if the Lord Advocate explained and defined it. Then we come to "tutor," into which my right hon. Friend has been conducting some interesting researches. It would be well if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could give us a definition of that. "Curator" I think I can understand, but some of my hon. Friends have told me that they are very puzzled by the use of this word.
Much as I should like and as, I am sure, many of my hon. Friends would like definitions of these four words, those are not to us the most important questions. I have given the questions in what seems to me the order of their importance. The first and not unreasonable request is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should tell us precisely what general Acts and what local Acts he is considering as governing the treatment of unfit houses and which led him, therefore, to seek the extension of the form provided in the Act of 1950. That seems to us to be the most important question, but secondly, it would be interesting if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were to tell us also how he came to visualise the financial commitments. Normally, as I am sure he will agree, the new Clause would have been brought up on Report. Thirdly, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will answer my inquiry about the representations from the Law Society and their relationship to the Public Health Act, 1887. We shall all be delighted to have the definitions.

10.15 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: As regards the first question, the amount of the burden on the rates is unknown. Provision, of course, has been made for that As regards the second question—

Mr. McNeil: That is half of my first question. Since the Government foresaw that, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also explain why they did not mention it in Standing Committee? The Government must have foreseen it


or, as I have explained, they would have taken it on Report. The Bill must have been recommitted because the Government understood that there was an additional financial obligation.

The Lord Advocate: The whole point of the new Clause arose as a result of a decision in the Sheriff Court in Glasgow. Several hours ago I stated that as the basis on which we were introducing the new Clause.
The second question asked what were the public general Acts and the local Acts that we had in mind when referring to them in the Clause. These Acts are referred to merely as supplying the machinery by which a local authority would seek to recover expenses. The Public General Acts under which local authorities in Scotland can recover such expenses are the Public Health Acts and the Burgh Police Act, to mention two of them. As regards local Acts, probably the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that Edinburgh and Glasgow and several other of the larger cities in Scotland, instead of relying on the general provisions of the Public Health Act, the Burgh Police Act—the latter in particular—have their own local code for machinery of recovery. That is why local Acts are also included.
In reply to the third point, the origin of the new Clause was the decision in the Sheriff Court in Glasgow. Following upon that decision, representations were made not only by the Law Society of Scotland but the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland. They based their requests on the consequences of that recent decision in the Sheriff Court. It is to try to remedy that primarily that the Clause was introduced.
The final question asked for legal definitions. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman wants a definition of "trustee." "Factor" is what in Scotland we call a judicial factor appointed by the court. A "tutor" is the representative of a pupil child and a "curator" is the representative of the minor child. By the use of these words—
trustee factor, tutor, curator … agent … or … liquidator"—
we are covering all the various people in a fiduciary capacity.

Mr. Ede: During an interval in the proceedings this afternoon, I looked up in Chambers' Dictionary, which seemed to me to be likely to be one that would appeal to Scotland, the definition of a tutor. It said there:
In Scots law, a guardian of a person as well as the estate of a boy under 14 or girl under 12.

The Lord Advocate: The right hon. Gentleman is giving an accurate description, but instead of
a boy under 14 or girl under 12
I said "a pupil," because a pupil in Scotland is precisely that. I do not think we are in disagreement.

Mr. Ede: I thought the school-leaving age was the same in Scotland as it was England, but this seems to be another example of the difficulties we get into when we have to discuss Scots law in a Committee into which some Englishmen venture.
What I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman is this. I gather that what I have read out is an accurate description of the word, although perhaps not in precise legal terms, but why is there inequality of the sexes in this matter? I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary, to whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman is appealing, knowing that every nice girl loves a sailor, will be able to give him some advice on that point. Who will look after the pupil when he passes beyond the stage when a tutor is responsible? Who takes on the responsibility? Is any liability that has been incurred by the tutor to be discharged by the person who takes over?
It seems to me that we have again got into one of those intricacies of Scottish law that does not worry us in England. Here a person is appointed a guardian or trustee of a minor, and the trust that is imposed lasts until the person reaches 21 years of age or occasionally some later age. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman or the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give me some information on this point.

Mr. Manuel: We have had a remarkable admission from the Lord Advocate. He said that the Government's reason for introducing this new Clause was because of a decision arrived at in the Glasgow


Sheriff Court, which made it necessary to have provision made for that contingency in the Money Resolution. But the money Resolution was passed some weeks before the case was heard in the Sheriff Court, so we really cannot accept that statement as being the reason. That is a cheap way to treat the Committee. It is intolerable that statements such as that should be thrown across the Committee by the Lord Advocate as a justification for this new Clause.
I am further concerned about this new Clause for another reason. Was any analysis made of the sum involved and an approximate figure arrived at? Surely it would have been possible to arrive at a figure for which the local authority was to be responsible. The Lord Advocate said he had no assessment of the amount which might fall on the local rates through this new Clause. But was there no explanation at all? Have the Government not asked the City of Edinburgh or the City of Glasgow how much property of this type was on the valuation roll? The information could easily have been obtained from the valuation returns. The rents are on the valuation roll, and if it were an assessment of a house within a building, we could have had a figure given to us.
I see the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne), the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, who is so good at running backwards and forwards and collating data in order to help his right hon. and gallant Friend through these troublesome times. He seems to have his mind quite made up that this could not have been assessed. I do not know the period in which the hon. Gentleman sat on local government, and how much of this material he has been in the habit of dealing with during his long years of local government service, but some of us have had a great deal to do with rating appeals arising from the subjects to which this new Clause is applied. It was not an easy job. We came across sad cases in the courts in connection with our work, so I ask him to be a little chary of doubting the sincerity of those of us who are trying to put forward this case tonight.
I do not want to appear to be rude, but I must again ask the Lord Advocate to reconsider what he said about the decision of the Glasgow Sheriff Court

and the Money Resolution covering the eventualities arising under this Clause. It will not hold water. We cannot have explanations of that kind, made so loosely. Could I have an answer?

Mr. Hector Hughes: Perhaps the Lord Advocate will give an answer to my hon. Friend later. Earlier today there was discussion as to whether this matter should come before the Scottish Grand Committee or before a Committee of the whole House. In view of the events that have taken place, it is just as well that it came before a Committee of the whole House.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Member must devote himself now to the question of whether this Clause should be added to the Bill.

Mr. Hughes: I am discussing the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Deputy-Chairman: The Question is, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

Mr. Hughes: I bow to your Ruling, Sir Rhys. What I was saying was just as relevant to this question as to the other one. As it turns out, this Clause is imposing an additional burden upon the British Exchequer. Therefore, it is right that English Members should have an opportunity of hearing a discussion and perhaps taking part in it.
One of the points I want to make follows the line taken by my hon. Friends about the definitions of the words "factor," "tutor," "curator," and "agent." It is clear that in Scotland they are terms apart and have a special meaning. Therefore, as this Bill will affect not only Scottish people but also will place a burden upon the poor English, it is right that they should know what these words mean.
I am at a loss to know, therefore, why they have not been included in the interpretation Clause. I know that we have not reached that Clause yet but I hope that in time, this day or some day, we may come to it and I suggest to the Government that it would be appropriate to put these terms of art into that Clause.
I asked a Government spokesman some questions about other phrases in


the Clause but I received no answer. What does "entitled to receive" mean? Who is to receive and who is to deter mine the question of title? What evidence is to be adduced as to that title? There is another phrase in line 6 of the Clause—

10.30 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: These questions seem to be directed to the Question "That the Clause be read a Second time "and not to the Question. "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

Mr. Hughes: I am speaking to that latter Question, Sir Rhys, and I am submitting that it would be inappropriate to add the Clause to the Bill without its being fully defined. I am indicating that there are phrases in the Clause which have not been denned and which should be defined before the Clause is added. There is the phrase,
… has not had, in his hands …
Who is to prove what he has in his hands? What tribunal is to prove it? When that tribunal so decides is there to be an appeal from the tribunal? Before the Clause is added to the Bill all these questions should be answered so that the Committee may know what it is adding to the Bill.

Mr. Ross: In arguing why the Clause should be added to the Bill the Lord Advocate suggested that the Government were taking note of an interpretation of the law in the Glasgow Sheriff Court and that whatever expense was involved to the local authority or to the Government was covered by the original estimate of the Money Resolution to the Bill. Will the Lord Advocate tell us when this case arose in the Glasgow court? The House passed the Money Resolution towards the end of January. It was held over during the Christmas Recess. Therefore, if the case of which we have heard today took place after January this year we must congratulate the Government on their amazing powers of pre-vision.

Mr. Manuel: Television.

Mr. Ross: An apt word if we take its connotation. The Government were able to perceive a case that was going to arise—

The Lord Advocate: It may help the hon. Member if I say that the date of the case was June, 1953.

Mr. Ross: That is rather strange. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would have saved a great deal of thought on the part of the Committee if he had been a little more specific earlier. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was addressing himself to a legal argument, why could not he have told the Committee that that was the date? And if that was the case, why was not this Clause introduced when the Bill was originally presented? Of course, it is an afterthought, and I am inclined to think that the Lord Advocate himself is an afterthought.

Mr. Pryde: The Committee cannot possibly accept the casual manner in which the Lord Advocate dealt with the provisions of this new Clause. He told the Committee that the total amount of money required was an unknown quantity, and then he said that there was ample provision for the cost of the outlay in connection with the Clause.
Can the Lord Advocate tell the Committee how much that will mean to certain large burghs and counties in Scotland? How much will it mean to Alloa, which at present has a consolidated rate of 29s. in the £? How much will it mean to the landward area of Peebles which at present is paying 25s. l0d. in the £? How much will it mean to Innerleithen, where the present figure is 26s. l0d. in the £?
In the figures recently returned by the Secretary of State for Scotland in answer to a Question it was shown clearly that 20 large burghs in Scotland had consolidated rates of over 20s. and that at least 30 counties were in a similar position. Does the Government realise that this will shake the economy of Scottish local government to its foundations? Do they realise that there are small burghs in Scotland whose income is so low that they could not possibly tackle the reconstruction of one slum building?

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not find any connection between the argument of the hon. Gentleman and the Question before the Committee.

Mr. Pryde: I am confining myself to the words of the Lord Advocate and if I


am out of order I suggest that the Lord Advocate was certainly out of order.

Clause added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
In moving this Motion, may I ask that the Secretary of State tell the House what is the intention of the Government regarding further progress?

Mr. J. Stuart: The original intention of the Government was to get the Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill, although I admit that we have not progressed as rapidly as could have wished. But that intention was announced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I am not the Leader of the House and I can only say, at this stage, that I have had no contrary instructions. We have suspended the Rule, it is now only twenty minutes to eleven and I hope the House will agree to proceed and make as much progress as we can.

Mr. Woodburn: I gather from that reply—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not know whether or not the right hon. Gentleman is speaking by leave of the House.

Mr. Woodburn: I was about to propose that the Motion should be withdrawn if we got a satisfactory answer.

Mr. T. Fraser: Before the Motion is withdrawn, I should like to say that I hope that the House will not think that Scottish Members are being unreasonable. [Interruption.] I heard one hon. Gentleman opposite say, "Of course, they are," and the Joint Under-Secretary laughed derisively at the remark I made. I want to tell the House just how Scottish Members have been behaving.
Scottish Members spent 24 sittings in Committee on the Bill. We did not complain about that. The Closure was moved on six occasions during the Committee stage, four times by the Opposition and twice by the Government. Since then we have dealt with one or two other Measures. We had the Long Leases (Scotland) Bill, the Committee stage of

which we completed at one sitting of the Standing Committee.
Only last week we disposed of the Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, a Bill of 74 Clauses and 10 Schedules, in the space of three hours. We took three hours on the Second Reading of a Bill which the Government described as the most complicated they had introduced. Then we proceeded at the same sitting of the House to complete the consideration in Committee of the Electricity Reorganisation (Scotland) Bill.
From that it will be seen that Scottish Members have not been guilty of delaying proceedings upon Scottish legislation. In fact, there are some people who now accuse Scottish Members on the Opposition benches of spending insufficient time upon some legislation. We on this side of the Committee attach considerable importance to the Bill we are now considering. We had a long Committee stage. We said that we were willing to sit at any hour of the day or night to give adequate consideration to the Measure.
The Government suggested that we should complete the Third Reading at today's Sitting. We took the recommittal stage first. We have just arrived at the Report stage, at nearly 10.45 p.m., and the Secretary of State says that he hopes to complete the Third Reading at this Sitting. There are three new Clauses, a new Schedule and about 30 Amendments in the name of the Secretary of State, and he suggests that we should complete—

Mr. J. Stuart: Most of them were put down to meet points raised by hon. Members opposite.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Fraser: We cannot discuss their merits now; otherwise I should be delighted to do so and to show that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in suggesting that they were put down in response to appeals made by Members of the Opposition. Some of them certainly are, but a great many are unacceptable to hon. Members of the Opposition. We suggest that it is unreasonable of the Government, particularly in view of the behaviour of the Opposition recently, to suggest at this time that we should proceed to the Report stage of the Bill with the intention of completing that stage and


the Third Reading at this day's Sitting, when we only move on to the Report stage at a quarter to eleven o'clock at night.
I ask the Secretary of State for an assurance that there will not be unreasonable demands upon ton. Members. This is not the Scottish Grand Committee. We said we were prepared to sit at any hour of the day or night. On many occasions during the passage of this Bill the Government have only won Divisions with the assistance of non-Scottish hon. Members, but it is improper to ask the whole House of Commons to begin the Report stage of a Scottish Bill with all these pages of Amendments with the intention of completing the Report stage and Third Reading at this day's Sitting.

Mr. Steele: The Secretary of State has said, in reply to a request to indicate what progress he hoped to make, that he was not the Leader of the House, and had no instruction from the Leader of the House, apart from the instruction to continue with the Report stage and proceed to the Third Reading. Since he made that statement the Leader of the House has arrived. The Leader of the House has not been here very much today, but I hope he will now say something about the Government's intentions regarding business.

Mr. Woodburn: I have to ask leave of the House to speak again. I did ask the Secretary of State whether the Government might feel inclined to take the House into its confidence over its intentions, and I want to make clear that hon. Members on this side of the House are not trying to be obstructive. Just before the Leader of the House came in, one of my hon. Friends gave examples of Bills being passed through in very short periods. This is rather a difficult Bill on which people feel strongly. I think the Secretary of State said that at first it had been intended to finish the Report stage and Third Reading. By that I gather that he meant that the Government did not intend to be unreasonable, and that if the Report stage were not finished by the time expected he would be prepared to propose some other arrangement.
I would repeat the assurance that there is no intention by a section of the House

to be unreasonable, although we feel it our duty to discuss some of these important Amendments, some of which have been put down in response to Amendments moved by us, and some of which are considerable alterations of the Bill which it would be wrong to pass over.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I am glad to respond to the request of the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). I am sorry that I was not here when the Motion was moved, but I did not realise that it was to be moved.
The fact is that the House earlier suspended the Rule. I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that the purpose of suspending the Rule is, of course, to make progress after the normal Sitting time. I accept from the right hon. Gentleman that there is no desire to be obstructive or anything of that sort, but I really think it is too soon yet to make any pronouncement about how far we can go. As the right hon. Gentleman has said that he does not want to be obstructive, I think that the best thing would be to withdraw the Motion now and make progress.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there were a great number of Government Amendments. I understand from my right hon. Friend that a great number of them are designed to meet specific points raised by the Opposition, and, while they may be numerous, many of them do not entail a great deal of discussion. We must see how we progress with them.

Mr. Woodburn: On the basis that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman implies reasonableness on the part of the Government at a later stage tonight, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(APPLICATION OF FORE GOING PROVISIONS OF PART II OF ACT TO CERTAIN CLASSES OF DWELLING-HOUSE.)

(1) The foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act and the First Schedule thereto shall, in their application to any dwelling-house to which this section applies, have effect subject to the modifications set out in the Schedule (Modifications of Part II of Act in Application to Certain Classes of Dwelling-house) to this Act.


(2) A dwelling-house to which this section applies is any such dwelling-house as is hereinafter mentioned, that is to say—

(a) any dwelling-house in respect of which there was in force at any time during the period between the thirteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-three, and the commencement of this Act—

(i) a certificate of a sanitary authority under the Rent Acts that the dwelling-house was not in a reasonable state of repair; or
(ii) an order of the court under the Rent Acts suspending an increase under paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1920 until the court is satisfied that the necessary repairs have been executed;

(b) any dwelling-house in respect of which a notice under section seven of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, requiring the execution of works on the dwelling-house was operative at any time during the period aforesaid;
(c) any dwelling-house being or forming part of premises on which there arose or continued or which were affected by, a nuisance within the meaning of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897 (being a nuisance arising from any want or defect of a structural character) in respect of which at any time during the period aforesaid intimation under section nineteen of that Act was given to, or a notice under section twenty of that Act was served on, the owner of the dwelling-house, or in respect of which at any time before the commencement of the period aforesaid a notice under the said section twenty was so served and the re quirements of such notice were not complied with before the commencement of that period.—[Mr. J. Stuart.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. J. Stuart: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The proposed Schedule—[Modifications of Part II of Act in Application to Certain Classes of Dwelling-house]— which arises from the proposed Clause is relevant to the debate and might be dealt with at the same time, if mat is agreeable.

Mr. Speaker: The proposed Clause and Schedule may be discussed together.

Mr. Stuart: I move the proposed Clause having very closely in mind the undertaking which I gave personally during the proceedings in the Standing Committee to do the best I could to meet points which were raised by many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I will not repeat what I said in the Standing Committee, but it can be found in columns 778 and 779 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee

dated 1st April. I asked for time in which to consider the various matters raised because I fully realised that hon. Members had felt very strongly on the matter and had a genuine desire that the Bill should be amended.
Since then we have been considering how to provide the better safeguards for the tenant about which I was pressed at that time. I think it would be fair to remind the House that it was generally agreed in the Committee that we are here dealing with the minority of cases rather than the normal or great majority. We can hope that, in practice, as the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said in column 776 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee, about 90 per cent, of the cases can be settled amicably between the landlord and the tenant.
I, the Joint Under-Secretary and others have given very careful thought to the views expressed by hon. Members during the debates in Committee. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire pressed the matter strongly and perfectly fairly, and I make no complaint whatever about that. The hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) supported him, as did many other hon. Members opposite.
They had two main points. One was that tenants were averse to going to the Sheriff Court and would not, therefore, challenge the landlord's declaration about the expenditure test. The second complaint was raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), who said that tenants had had "to do all the running about," the onus being always on the tenant to go to the local authority for a certificate, or to the court. The hon. and learned Member for Paisley said, quite fairly, that in his opinion the better-off tenants in the better class houses would have no difficulty. He went on to say that we had to look at the other end of the scale.
That is precisely what the Government have been doing, and what the new Clause aims to do. It provides that the repairs increase should not be claimed without a certificate from the local authority that the conditions have been fulfilled in the case of all houses which are "suspect." I will deal with that point later. In such cases the landlord would be required to prove that the house was


now in a condition to justify increased rent.
This new procedure is laid down in the proposed new Schedule. The problem which confronted us was to define a "suspect" house. After considering possible variants and the complications arising therefrom, we came to the conclusion that the best plan was to define as "suspect" all the houses in respect of which the local authority had taken statutory action within a recent period, whether under the Rent Acts, the Housing Act or the Public Health Act, for structural defects. I want the House to be in no doubt as to precisely what we mean in the proposed Clause.
I should make clear the three forms of statutory action. The first is the issue of a certificate of disrepair under the Rent Acts, or an order of the court suspending the repairs increase permitted in 1920. The second is an operative notice issued under Section 7 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, requiring the owner to carry out works, on the ground that the house is unfit by reason of disrepair or sanitary defects. The third is an intimation or notice under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, in respect of a nuisance arising from any want or defect of a structural character.
I referred just now to action taken by local authorities within a recent period. To go into rather more detail, we propose to take as the earlier date 13th November, 1953, the date of the introduction of the Bill, and for the latter date, the date when the Bill becomes an Act. I must say that I am fully aware that the action taken by the authority may have been taken prior to the earlier date. What counts is whether the certificate or notice issued is still in operation after 13th November. If that notice or certificate is still in operation after 13th November, then the house, to which it refers, will come into this special class.
11.0 p.m.
A further point, which, I think, I should stress about this particular class of house, and which goes, I hope, a long way towards meeting the points raised by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, is this: in addition to satisfying the local authority about the condition of the house the landlord of such a house will have either to obtain the tenant's

agreement as to the expenditure test, or, satisfy the sheriff that it has been fulfilled.
I stress this point because I am well aware of the objections which hon. Members opposite raised to the tenant going to the sheriff court. But, in this proposed procedure, it will be the landlord and not the tenant who has to go to the sheriff. I hope that point will go a long way towards meeting the objections and anxieties which hon. Members expressed during the Standing Committee stage.
This new Clause defines the class of dwelling-house to which the special procedure is to apply. It is that with which I have been dealing. The new Schedule makes such modifications to Part II of the Bill as are necessary to carry out this special procedure.
Paragraph 1 provides, in effect, that the landlord of the special class of house must apply to the local authority for a certificate of repair. In the next paragraph are various declarations which have to be made in the notice of increase to be served on the tenant. The landlord of the special class of house will have to declare, first, that there is in force a certificate of repair; secondly, that the expenditure test has been fulfilled; and, thirdly, that he has either agreed in writing with the tenant, or that the sheriff has determined that the necessary work for compliance with the expenditure test has been carried out.
I hope that the House will agree that this new Clause, coupled with the new Schedule, goes some way towards satisfying the opinion expressed in Standing Committee. We were impressed with the views expressed during that stage. We have been into the whole position with great care and given a lot of thought to the matter and done our best to meet these points.

Mr. D. Johnston: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I would be failing in courtesy if we did not express to the Secretary of State our appreciation of the obvious attention that he has paid to the points that we made with such persistence in Committee, and for the very courteous explanation which he has given of this new Clause. If I may say so, in parenthesis, I sometimes think it is regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman does not take upon himself to a greater


extent the task of explaining some of the other new Clauses and Amendments
While this new Clause is a vast improvement on the Bill as it was, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises that it does not meet what I ventured to express in the Committee stage was the real fundamental objection to the Bill, and that is that the Government's intention, which, I understand, is that the houses should be in repair, will not be fulfilled. The reason is that with the exception of those specially provided for in the new Clause and in the Schedule, the landlord will get the carrot without doing any work.

Mr. J. Stuart: It is a mouldy turnip.

Mr. Hoy: That is the English Bill.

Mr. Johnston: I cannot regard a 40 per cent, increase in the rent for the landlord as mouldy.
I should like to ask she Secretary of State What percentage of the houses is to be dealt with under the new Clause. My own impression is that it will not be more than approximately 25 per cent, of the three-quarters of a million, which, I gather, are covered by the Rent Restrictions Act. None of the houses with higher rents will be covered, and my impression is that only the lower rented houses will come under it, and that that number will be very much reduced, in effect, by the fact that many of them will be covered by the Part I of the Bill and will never come under Part II at all.
That will be because the local authority has issued one of the three or four orders provided for by the new Clause, but the houses will be in such a state that instead of being dealt with under Part II of the Bill they will come under Part I and fall to be dealt with by the local authority. I hope we can have an estimate—I realise it can only be a rough estimate—of the number likely to be affected by the new Clause.
The other point which makes me doubt the efficacy of this new Clause and Schedule is the fact that the Secretary of State, during the course of the Committee stage, told us that in the last few years—I cannot remember the exact period, but I think it was three years—only about 250 certificates, which would fall under subsection (2) of the new Clause, had been issued. Perhaps the right hon.

Gentleman could tell us the number of certificates issued which would fall under any of the headings in subsection (2).
I do not think the Secretary of State was quite right when he said that the dates to which the new Clause applied were limited by the action which the local authority took between 13th November, 1953, and the commencement of the operation of the Bill. I think that the Clause is better for the Government than that. [Interruption.] I have a note of the right hon. Gentleman's words, "action by the local authority within that period." The action may have been taken long before by the local authority. All that matters is that the certificate should still be in force.
As I understood it, the Secretary of State did not make the best of that part of his case. It may be the certificate is 20 years old, and that no action has been taken by the local authority; it is extant, and, accordingly, operates under the new Clause and the related Schedule. While the new Clause does not go nearly as far as we should like, we are grateful to the Secretary of State for doing what he has done, and only regret he has not found it possible to do a very great deal more.

Mr. Woodburn: I thought the right hon. Gentleman would have said a further word. I would supplement what my hon. and learned Friend has said. I refer to paragraph (2, c,) which speaks of:
any dwelling-house … forming part of premises on which there arose or continued, or which were affected by, a nuisance within the meaning of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897 (being a nuisance arising from any want or defect of a structural character). …
I take it that a tenant of a house that is not wind or water tight or has any structural defect, even though a sanitary inspector's certificate has not been issued, is entitled to call upon the sanitary inspector to examine the house and insist that it be put right. If the house is not put right, the tenant will be protected, I take it. I wonder whether the Secretary of State could clear up that question.
I regret that he did not adopt the suggestion, in regard to the 90 per cent, of the houses, that he should, first of all, leave it to agreement between the landlord and the tenant and then provide for


cases where they do not agree. As my hon. and learned Friend has said, we are grateful for this considerable concession that the right hon. Gentleman has made for the poorer tenants, the people in the worst conditions, but I am sure he would not want to withhold protection from a large number of comparatively well-to-do people who do not live in dilapidated houses but who would be pleased, if the repairs of their homes were not done, to have the protection of the Bill, without having to be involved in legal proceedings. I do not suppose anything can be done about them now, unless it is done in another place, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to clear up the point whether the new Clause affects only cases in which certificates have been issued, or not.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Willis: There are, of course, in the large towns of Scotland a very large number of houses recognised as unfit for human habitation for which a certificate has not been issued because the local authorities have been unable to rehouse the people in them. In Edinburgh, the number in 1946 was 6,800 and the total has now reached 10,000. As the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. Johnston) said, most of them will probably be dealt with under Part I of the Bill, but before they can be effectively dealt with a considerable time is likely to edapse—a year, two years or even more.
Do the provisions of this Clause cover most of these houses? In Edinburgh, the position is that neither the landlords nor the tenants know, but the local authority does, and it seems to me that the people living in them should receive some protection. It is supposed to be the Government's intention that they should be protected—and I have no reason to doubt them—'but the point is whether all these tenants are likely to be protected by the new Clause and the new Schedule during the period before they come under the provisions of Part I of the Bill.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. Johnston) asked me the percentage of houses covered by this Clause. It is not possible to make any accurate assessment. He asked whether it would be 25 per

cent. I think that might be a little bit high. Fifteen per cent, might be nearer. Few certificates of disrepair have been issued during the past two years, but what matters at the moment is the number in force, irrespective of the date of issue. He also asked me how many houses were affected. Again, it is quite impossible to give an accurate figure, but it might be about 60,000 under the Public Health Act, 20,000 under the Housing Act, and some 20,000 subject to certificates of disrepair.
The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) asked me specifically whether houses coming under the Public Health Act would be protected. Of course, they will not be protected unless action has been taken under the Act. If action has not been taken by the local authorities between the dates indicated then the protection given in the Act will not be available to the tenant.

Mr. Woodburn: My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has an Amendment down, which we may reach, dealing with a large number of houses in regard to which a certain type of action has been taken. He will probably explain later that Edinburgh, Glasgow, and other towns, have a number of houses which have not been classified as unfit because they were not in a position to order their demolition and, at the same time, to rehouse the tenants.
About 6,000 or 7,000 houses have been listed in that category. They would have been demolished but for the war. No action was taken because it would have been embarrassing to the local authority and the landlord to issue a closing or demolition order, and the point is that notices may still not have been issued between these dates. Yet they are in the category of unfit. It would seem desirable that the like of that house should come under the provisions of paragraph (2, c). Is it the case, for instance, that that property—

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be making a second speech.

Mr. Woodburn: With due respect, Sir, and by leave of the House, I should like to ask a question. As far as I can see, paragraph (a) includes the period between


13th November and the operation of the Bill. Is paragraph (c) governed by paragraph (a)? It does not seem to me to be likely.

Commander Galbraith: The situation is perfectly clear. The Clause affects houses which are subject to action before the Bill comes into operation. If action has not been taken under one of the three different heads before the Bill comes into operation the protection of the Clause is not available. I hope that that is clear. The dates are the dates stated by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn).
The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about the desirability of protection being available for the well-to-do. We want everyone to have the utmost possible protection, but it is not possible for anyone to protect people fully in the way in which the Opposition desire. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out to the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) in the Standing Committee, we agree that higher rented houses are owned by better landlords and are occupied by people who know their rights rather better. The poorer classes of tenants, in the worst class of houses with possibly the worst landlords, are the people to whom one wants to give all the protection it is possible to give.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) spoke about 6,000 houses in Edinburgh. There again the provision applies that unless action has been taken before the Bill comes into operation the protection of the Clause is not available.

Mr. Willis: Surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at this matter again. Surely the intention of the Government is that these tenants should not be liable to bear an increase. Would the Government not consult the local authorities again and see that something is done to afford them protection?

Mr. Steele: We on this side of the House are as anxious as the Government to carry out Government intentions in this matter. I know that in the town of Dumbarton the sanitary inspector has a list of these houses and that the medical officer of Dunbartonshire has a list of houses in respect of which closure certificates have been issued. They are prohibited from closing the houses because

of lack of alternative accommodation. I am sure that the wishes of all hon. Members would be met if there was a possibility of securing from the local authorities lists of such houses and they were regarded as coming within these provisions.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the next new Clause goes with the Amendment which appears on the Order Paper to leave out Clause 26.

New Clause.—(EXCLUSION FROM RENT ACTS OF DWELLING-HOUSES CON VERTED OR ERECTED AFTER COM MENCEMENT OF ACT.)

(1) The Act of 1920 shall not apply to a dwelling-house which consists, and consists only, of premises falling within either of the following paragraphs, that is to say—

(a) separate and self-contained premises produced by conversion, after the commencement of this Act, of other premises, with or without the addition of premises erected after the commencement of this Act;
(b) premises erected after the commencement of this Act.

(2) For the purposes of this section premises shall be treated as converted or erected after the commencement of this Act if the conversion or erection was completed thereafter, notwithstanding that it may have been begun before the commencement of this Act.
(3) Section sixteen of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act, 1951, shall have effect with the addition, after paragraph (b) of subsection (2) thereof, of the following paragraph: —
(bb) that those premises are excluded from the operation of the Rent Act of 1920 by section (Exclusion from Rent Acts of dwelling-houses converted or erected after commencement of Act) of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954."—[Commander Galbraith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this Clause is to exclude from the Rent Acts new dwelling-houses, or houses which have been converted after the commencement of the Act. It is designed to encourage the owners of new houses or converted houses who do not require them for their own occupation to let them unfurnished. The present position is that if an owner of a new house or a


converted house decides to let it, the rent for the first letting becomes the standard rent for the purposes of the Rent Acts, which is subject to review by a rent tribunal under Section 1 of the 1949 Act.
I put it to hon. Members that anyone who contemplates letting a house may be deterred by the uncertainty about the rent which he will receive and may decide that if he cannot occupy the premises himself he had better sell them. This Clause should make for an increase in the number of houses to let, and that is something which is very desirable indeed.
As a result of there being so few houses to let, people who have to move about the country find great difficulty in obtaining a house to rent. The majority of houses to let are local authority houses, and, rightly or wrongly, many local authorities insist on prospective tenants having a residential qualification. People who have to move about from place to place cannot have such a qualification. They are, therefore, forced either to go into furnished accommodation, which means that they have the additional expense of having to store their furniture, or else they have to buy a house, which may be a very expensive matter.
From the economic point of view it is desirable to encourage these people to move about the country and such people should have a better opportunity to acquire a house There was a provision similar to this in the 1920 Act where it was laid down that no house provided after 2nd April, 1919, came under the Rent Acts. They did not come under the Rent Acts until the emergency of 1939. It comes to this, that within two years after the end of the First World War this action was taken without serious hardship resulting. Nine years have now elapsed since the end of the Second World War, and with the enormous building programme which is going on, we think that we should allow for these people I have mentioned finding accommodation to rent.

Mr. McNeil: I do not find the explanation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wholly satisfactory. At first sight, it would seem that the Government have again substantially altered their policy from that which they adopted

doing the Committee stage when we discussed Clause 26.
I can understand that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not want unduly to detain the House, but I think it would have been desirable for the House to know that the Government have moved away from the position they adopted when Clause 26 was discussed in Committee. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember that he adopted a strong position about that Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) both advanced strong arguments, but the Minister did not feel inclined to give way on the subject and we eventually divided the Committee.
11.30 p.m.
Today the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, with no apology—perhaps none was necessary—and very little explanation altered his positon. Quite plainly, this means an end to rent control for any type of new house. Perhaps I am wrong in that, but I do not think so, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not seek to allay any fears upon that subject. Subsection (2) seems to be most ambiguous. It says:
For the purposes of this section premises shall be treated as converted or erected after the commencement of this Act if the conversion or erection was completed thereafter, notwithstanding that it may have been begun before the commencement of this Act.
I admit that I might be wrong on this point. Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman really seeking just to cover legitimate developments and conversions that were taking place and that were limited by the date upon which the Bill becomes operative? If that is so, I am not sure whether we can find a better form of words to meet the intention; but it will be plain that this provision could be capable of very wide extension.
Is there no date to it? Does it not matter when it was begun and when it was completed? What is a conversion or erection? Is it a substantial subdivision, a substantial provision of additional accommodation? What kind of operation is in the mind of the Government when they make this exemption for which I believe that a case may be made?

Commander Galbraith: It applies to any conversion that takes place—where a house is divided into two or it may be where two houses are made into one. Any conversion of that nature would come under this provision. Of course, it applies when the house has been completed after the date of the Bill coming into operation—when the job has been finished after that date.

Mr. McNeil: I believe that this subsection is meant to apply to a legitimate procedure, a normal business procedure, but suppose that a landlord or an owner could show that many years ago he had started some kind of alteration. Suppose that he pleaded that it was his intention to knock two rooms into one, would there be any test of date?

Commander Galbraith: I do not see how that would apply. If an alteration was started many years ago something must have happened to the house in the meantime. It must be a house now. It is not an alteration which is taking place and which will finish just after the Bill becomes an Act. I do not see how the point applies. 1 cannot envisage a case like the one the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Mr. McNeil: I hope that I am wrong. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that something must have happened to the house in the interval. That is precisely the point. I am trying to argue that it must have been a firm intention to make this kind of alteration at the date when it will be alleged the operations were commenced and that they were spread over many years. It would be difficult, but I could offer a form of words. I do not pretend that it would apply to any very wide area of case, but I have a suspicion that this ambiguous sub-section could be misused.
I presume that those mainly affected under paragraph 3 are Civil Defence people. I do not know what is the anxiety of the Government to lay hold of that type of house under this new Clause. If it is a local government house, local government is in a position to treat it as it wishes. Has the paragraph any other purpose? If it is not a local government house which he has in mind, of what other type of house is he thinking? At this stage it seems unlikely that we can accept the Clause, and I doubt

whether, even if they were substantial buildings, the Secretary of State has said enough to commend the Clause to the House. It seems to me that this is another attack on the excellent legislation which was available.
It looks, also, as if, through modification of the Labour Government's Act, buildings which attracted subsidy will be set free to make any profit; though 1 may be wrong. That Act was a good one. Under it, public money was properly applied, and from it tenants benefited. It now looks as though public money is being thrown away. If the Minister is anxious to make available more houses to let, then there must be other ways of tackling the matter.
A simple way, which we have repeatedly urged, is to say that it is illegal to seek to withhold from a fair letting any such house. Local authorities could deal with that situation. One of my hon. Friends once offered an excellent Bill to the House. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, despite his reasonable attitude, has not been able to remove our fears that consideration here is not for the tenant, but for the owner and factor.

Mr. Hoy: I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) that the Clause is rather loosely worded. It would be as well if we had an assurance from the Government about their intentions. The purpose of the 1949 Act was to allow owners to convert and modernise property with the aid of Government grants. In the case of a private owner, the Government could grant up to 50 per cent, of the cost.

Commander Galbraith: Perhaps I ought to have made this clear earlier. Where the conversion is the result of an improvement grant under the 1949 Act, for the period for which the conditions apply, normally 20 years, the rent is still limited by the Act to that fixed by the local authority at the date when the application for the grant was approved.

Mr. Hoy: If that is the case and we are clear that no greater rent can be charged, that the rent will still be within the scope of the Rent Restrictions Acts and that the term of 20 years would also apply to sale—the Act prohibited any sale under 20 years—I am satisfied on the point.

Mr. Ross: Would it not be possible for a person who had started a conversion under Section 3 of the 1949 Act to sell and pay back the original subsidy, do a little more work on the house and qualify for the new benefits which are granted to a landlord under the Clause?

Commander Galbraith: I presume that if a landlord got rid of his obligation under the Act, as provided for in the Act, he might be eligible if he did some further conversion. I do not know how it would come about, but there might be such cases.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that there might be cases and that there might be some other conversions. There is no definition here to say whether the conversion has to be reconstruction as under the Act. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is opening up a wide field for the speculative letting of houses.
Under Section 3 of the 1949 Act, by which the Labour Government hoped to encourage the conversion of older dwelling-houses to two or three houses each for letting at controlled rents, the permitted increase of rent was originally 6 per cent, of the landlord's expenditure. The present Government have now raised the figure to 8 per cent.
Under those provisions, very few owners of large houses have made any conversions. The Government have said that greater use is now being made of Section 3 of the 1949 Act than ever before. We have also been told that that is purely and simply the result of the improvement grant being applicable to tied houses and because previously it had not paid to do the work. The fact that little was done was not because there was not a need or that there was not a reasonable profit to be made, but because it did not pay enough. The Government are now retreating before these people in order to make it possible for them to convert large houses.
One of the places in which this will be done is Edinburgh, of all places. The Victorian and Edwardian type houses there will be converted into three or four separate flats each. Some of that work is already being done. The persons who rent them will have no security of tenure, and there will be no ceiling on the rent.

If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that this will in any way help meet the housing need in Scotland, he is deceiving himself, and I doubt very much whether the truth is in it.

11.45 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) should doubt whether the truth was in me. I hope that I have an equal aptitude for telling the truth with the hon. Gentleman himself. I am sure that he will allow me that measure of truthfulness within me. I should be delighted if, as a result of the Clause, conversions took place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that there are many people who would like to get one of these houses outwith the provisions of rent control. In any case, I do not believe that the only people who should be able to offer houses for letting should be the local authorities, and house owners should be able to have security in matters like this.
The hon. Gentleman said it looked at first sight as though the Government had altered their policy. It is useless for me to deny that the Government have had second thoughts, but in view of the way in which they have been supplying the country with houses, through the local authorities and the building industry, it was reasonable to introduce this measure of decontrol. It means the end of rent control in regard to new houses for letting. Nine years have elapsed since the end of the war, and it is time we had this measure of freedom.
The right hon. Gentleman said that consideration was not given to the tenants, but it is given to the tenants here. Unless we do something like this, tenants will not be able to have houses at all. We believe this will make more houses available for letting, and that it is proper to make the revision. For that reason we wish to put the Clause into the Bill.

Mr. T. Fraser: On a point of order. I do not wish to be thought to be making any attack upon you, Mr. Speaker, but at the beginning of the proceedings this afternoon your attention was called to occasions when hon. Members were alleged to be speaking for the second time without asking leave of the House. The Joint Under-Secretary of State is entitled, as a Privy Councillor, to speak


a second time, but he has been addressing the House for the third time without asking leave. I believe that he has been slightly in error in assuming that we were in Committee.

Mr. Speaker: Let there be no misunderstanding about this. I would refer hon. Members to Standing Order No. 52. which says that
When a bill has been committed to a standing committee or has been so committed in respect of some of its provisions, then, on consideration of the report of the bill or such of its provision as were so committed, the rule against speaking more than once shall not apply to the Member in charge of the bill. …

Mr. Fraser: I beg pardon, Mr. Speaker, if I am in error. It seemed a bit unusual for the Minister in charge of the new Clause to do so when the Minister in charge of the Bill had gone for sustenance. It is a little unusual for the Joint Under-Secretary in charge of a new Clause to reply to each point that is made by each hon. Member.

Commander Galbraith: I was only endeavouring to be courteous.

Mr. Fraser: I am not accusing the right hon. and gallant Gentleman of discourtesy. What I said was that I thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was ignoring the fact that this was not the Report stage of the Bill and that we are the House and no longer in Committee. However, I do not want to waste time. I apologise if I have misconstrued the Standing Order and raised a false point.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has just confessed that the Government have had second thoughts about Clause 26. This Clause was Clause 25 on Second Reading and as we took it in Standing Committee. I chose to challenge the Government on the introduction of Clause 25 as it then was, now Clause 26, because it seemed to me to be an unnecessary modification of the provisions of the Act of 1949.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman stoutly defended Clause 26 only a few weeks ago. He said he thought the Opposition would have welcomed the new Clause. We had been calling attention to the fact that when these conversions took place, under the Act of 1949, the rent of the house was deter-

mined by a rent tribunal. We thought it would not be a bad idea for the rent tribunal to have regard to the total rent of the house and that there should be a process of apportionment, whether two houses were being made into one, or six made into three, or one house being made into three, four or five.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said:
Why not leave it to the people who are able to judge these things properly, as provided in the Act, and leave them untrammelled by this unnecessary reference to the rent which was the rent for the house as a whole? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 9th February, 1954; c. 913].
That was his view of Clause 26.
Since then somebody has got at the Government—the Lord Advocate suggested Mr. Murray McGregor.

The Lord Advocate: I never mentioned Mr. Murray McGregor.

Mr. Fraser: Who beside the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned him?

The Lord Advocate: I was being accused and I say that I did not mention him.

Mr. Fraser: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say who did?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Murray McGregor, whoever he may be, has nothing to do with this Clause.

Mr. Fraser: I entirely agree. Mr. Murray McGregor ought to have nothing at all to do with this. But I said that somebody had got at the Government and sitting there are the Joint Undersecretary, the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Whip. One of them, in an audible voice, mentioned Mr. Murray McGregor and I thought it was the Lord Advocate.
Nevertheless, somebody has got at the Government and has said, "Although you have improved the Act of 1949 in favour of the landlords, in Clause 26, we still have this instrument which was so highly praised by the Secretary of State, the rent tribunal." They have all been thrown overboard and the landlords have been set free. The party opposite fought the last General Election on "Set the people free," but they did not say that it was people like Murray


McGregor. They did not say that it was the landlords who were to be set free.
I submit to the House that if we cannot trust the landlords of existing houses, we have no right whatever to trust the landlords of houses to be built in the future, whether they are new houses or houses created as a result of the conversion of existing property. We cannot trust the landlords. Nobody can stand up in this House tonight and say that he trusts the landlords. The only reason for continuing the control of rents of houses is that the landlords are not to be trusted. But this House is not being asked to trust the landlords.
It is obvious that a great many non-Scottish Members in the House at the moment regard this matter as one of some levity. Not surprisingly, the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) thinks so, but this matter is very serious to the tenants of Scotland, and we cannot lightly allow this new Clause to be written into the Bill, because every new house created as the result of conversion means the end of rent control. A few weeks ago the Joint Under-Secretary of State said that the tribunals would decade that. Today, he seems to have changed his mind, and he now says that Murray McGregor and others will decide these things. We on this side of the House emphatically disagree.

Mr. McInnes: I consider this to be a scandalous Clause, since it involves the complete abolition of rent control. It is rather strange that no mention was made of this policy in the Bill as drafted. It was not suggested during Second Reading nor during the Committee stage, and we only find ourselves confronted with it this evening when there is very little opportunity of debating its merits.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), I am convinced that this Clause has been inserted at the behest of the factors and the Property Owners' Association of Scotland, because we have shown, particularly during the Committee stage, that private enterprise had lamentably failed to provide homes for the people for letting. We quoted figures to prove that since the end of the war private enterprise in Scotland has built less than 1 per cent, of the total number of houses for letting.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Member will realise that the whole object of this scheme is to encourage them to do better.

12 midnight.

Mr. McInnes: It is not an encouragement to them to do better to give them a free market without any control of the rents. The result will be that rents for houses will be fixed at a figure outside the capacity of the average worker to pay. That is the purpose behind the new Clause. The Tory Party, bearing in mind its policy in this matter, is bound at the behest of the factors and property owners to abolish rent control.
What will that mean? It will inevitably mean the diversion of labour and materials from the building of municipal houses, from the houses most needed, to the building of houses to rent at £80, £100 or £150 a year. That is the intention behind the new Clause. It is scandalous that a new Clause like this should be sprung on us on Report, when we cannot, as we could in Committee, debate the merits of the whole matter. This is a carefully conceived and planned effort on the Government's part, for they were afraid to have a detailed examination of their policy, to see if the abolition of rent control was desirable or not. In conjunction with my hon. Friends I protest vigorously against this method employed.

Commander Galbraith: I must clear up a mistake the hon. Member has made. He has twice spoken of the abolition of rent control. This is nothing of the kind. The new Clause abolishes rent control of houses built or converted in the future. I would assure the hon. Gentleman we have no intention that houses should be provided at such rents no one could possibly live in them. It is not reasonable to suppose anyone is going to build houses for a rent nobody can possibly pay. That seems a ridiculous suggestion. The hon. Gentleman also said the object of the Government was to divert resources from municipal houses. Far be it from him or anyone on those benches to make that charge against this Government, who have built far more houses than hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would have kept his mouth very much shut on that aspect of the matter.

Mr. McNeil: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite certain that houses will be built at rents attractive to the ordinary tenants why does he seek this back door method of amending the Bill?

Commander Galbraith: I do not admit that this is a back door method. We are bringing up a new Clause in the House of Commons. How can that be a back door method?

Mr. Hector Hughes: The Joint Undersecretary of State has just said it is not the intention of the Government to divert building resources from the building of municipal houses. Surely he must realise that, whether that is the intention of the Government or not, that is bound to be the effect of their policy, and that it will do a great deal of harm to housing in the country. The springing of this proposal upon the House at the last moment is a very improper procedure.
I should like to know why this provision was not in the Bill as drafted. Why was it not brought in at the Committee stage? Why was it left until Report? Surely it is perfectly clear that it is the intention to avoid adequate discussion and to try and ram it through without discussion, and without giving the country or the House an opportunity of considering it fully or properly. I hope that the House will reject the Clause.

Mr. Willis: We protest very vigorously against this class legislation, for that is what it is. The Joint Under-Secretary, the right hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith), said that no one would build houses at rents which

nobody could possibly pay. But there will be people who are able to afford them, and they will not be workingclass people. What the Government are doing is pursuing a policy which will ultimately result in very few workingclass houses being built at rents ordinary people can afford. They are encouraging the building of houses for sale. Under this Clause they are encouraging the building of houses to let at rents which will be too dear for workingclass people.

The local authorities are going once again, under this Bill, to undertake slum clearance, and that is the function the Government sees them performing in the future. What, then, is to become of the workingclass need for houses at rents which they can afford to pay? There are thousands of rented houses for sale in Scotland every year and the Government refuses to take action to stop that. Even this Bill is being used as a pretext by hundreds of factors in Scotland to try to inveigle tenants into buying their houses. Thousands are being sold every year and the number for letting is becoming increasingly small.

This is a shocking move on the part of the Government, and I can only assume they did not put this proposal in the Bill originally because they were afraid of losing more support than they have already lost. This Bill gave me thousands of votes in my by-election. If this provision had been the law I would have increased my majority by a couple of thousand.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 92.

Division No. 100.]
AYES
[12.8 a.m.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bullard, D. G.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Alport, C. M. M.
Burden, F. F. A
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Carr, Robert
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)


Arbuthnot, John
Channon, H.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Glover, D.


Baldwin, A. E
Cole, Norman
Godber, J. B


Banks, Col. C.
Conant, Mai. R J. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col A


Barlow, Sir John
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Cough, C. F. H.


Baxter, A. B
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Grimond, J


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Crouch, R. F.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bishop, F. P.
Deedes, W. F.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Boothby, Sir R- J G.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hay, John


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Donaldson, Cmdr C. E. McA
Heath, Edward


Boyle, Sir Edward
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Higgs, J. M. C.


Brooks, Henry (Hampstead)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Brooman-White, R. C.
Eden, J. G. (Bournemouth, West)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Finlay, Graeme
Holt, A. F.




Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Neave, Airey
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Stevens, G. P.


Hurd, A R.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Studholme, H. G.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Page, R. G.
Summers, G. S.


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kerr, H. W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Teeling, W.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Prlkinglon, Capt. R. A.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lambton, Viscount
Powell, J. Enoch
Thomas, P. J. M. (Coway)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Profumo, J. D.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Turner, H. F. L.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S)
Redmayne, M.
Turton, R. H.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Ridsdale, J. E.
Vosper, D. F.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Wall, P. H. B,


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Roper, Sir Harold
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wellwood, W.


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Russell, R. S.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Maude, Angus
Scott, R. Donald
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Madlicott, Brig. F.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mellor, Sir John
Shepherd, William



Molson, A. H. E.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Wills.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Hargreaves, A.
Pryde, D. J.


Adams, Richard
Hayman, F H.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Awbery, S. S.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)
Rankin, John


Bence, C. R
Herbison, Miss M.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Benson, G.
Hoy, J. H.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Ross, William


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Brockway, A. F.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Broughton, Dr. A. D, D
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Skeffington, A. M.


Carmichael, J.
Keenan, W.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Champion, A. J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Steel, T.


Cluntie, J.
Lawson, G. M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Collick, P H
Lewis, Arthur
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
MacColl, J. E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Mclnnes, J.
Thornton, E.


Crossman, R. H. S.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Timmons, J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Usborne, H. C.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Manuel, A. C.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Weitzman, D.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Moyle, A.
West, D. G.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mulley, F. W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Fernyhough, E.
Oswald, T.
Wigg, George


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Palmer, A. M. F
Willey, F. T.


Foot, M. M.
Pargiter, G. A.
Willis, E. G.


Forman, J. C
Parker, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Pearson, A.
Yates, V. F.


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Popplewell, E.



Hale, Leslie
Porter, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, W. W.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor.


Hannan, W.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)



Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF MEANING OF EXPRESSION "TENANT" IN ACT OF 1920.)

(1) The rights conferred on a member of a deceased tenant's family by, and in the circum stances stated in, paragraph (g) of subsection (1) of section twelve of the Act of 1920 shall extend to such a member, if the tenant left a widow not residing with him at the time of his death.
(2) In accordance with the last foregoing subsection, the said paragraph (g) (which

declares the expression "tenant" to include in certain circumstances the widow of a tenant or a member of the tenant's family) shall be amended by inserting after word "no" the word "such."

Brought up, and read the First time.

12.15 a.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause will enable a member of a tenant's family who is residing with him at the time of his death to succeed


him as the statutory tenant under the Rent Acts in the case where the tenant's widow is not residing with him. An injustice has been inadvertently created in regard to this type of individual, and the purpose of this Clause is to remedy it in favour of the tenant.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: On the point of order. Hon. Members who do not represent constituencies in Scotland came into the Chamber especially to hear the Lord Advocate. That is a rare experience for us and we have been prevented from hearing him because of the noise made by other Scottish Members. Would it be possible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to address the House again, and for there to be silence?

Mr. Woodburn: The Secretary of State has occasionally made concessions in a hesitant manner, and our acceptance has been just as hesitant. But in this case there is no hesitancy at all. We accept this new Clause, and welcome it as an improvement.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned."
I hope that we may ascertain from the Secretary of State what is the intention of the Government regarding further progress. It will be seen from the way in which we accepted the last Clause that the Opposition are not acting unreasonably. A great amount of work has been accomplished and a considerable volume of controversial legislation dealt with. We think that the Government should be satisfied with the progress which has been made.

Mr. J. Stuart: I do not want to keep the House sitting indefinitely, although we do wish to make progress. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to give an undertaking that if we stopped now, or soon, we should be able to complete the remaining stages of Report and Third Reading in a reasonable time, preferably without suspension of the Standing Order, on another day.

Mr. McNeil: I presume that the Secretary of State is offering us another day. If that means a full day I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends would be very anxious to meet him. However, in view of our unfortunate experiences, which have not arisen from this side of the Committee, I should say that while my right hon. Friends would do everything to meet the Secretary of State, we hope that we shall not have a sudden surprise sprung on us, with no one to give an explanation. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not think me unreasonable in making that point.
With the exception of one Clause, we made fairly satisfactory progress today. There was one unfortunate hitch, but I do not particularly blame anyone. I do not anticipate that it will happen again. It would be rash of me or anyone else to say flatly that the rest of the proceedings would be completed in one day. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are anxious to co-operate in the discharge of the Bill and in his reasonable offer.

Mr. Crookshank: I am not quite clear, having heard the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, about what he was trying to say. Is he or is he not prepared to give an undertaking to complete the proceedings on another day without suspension— that is to say, sitting the ordinary length of time?

Mr. McNeil: I repeat that I think that a very reasonable offer. I anticipate that if normal Parliamentary procedure were followed we could give that undertaking. The Lord Privy Seal may not have been familiar with the proceedings today, and I do not blame him for that. We had a most unfortunate situation. I am not sure how far I am in order in referring to it but it was very difficult to understand that a new Clause was really relevant. Some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had difficulty in persuading themselves that it was relevant.
All I would say is that if the Government would take steps to see that there was a reasonable presentation of their case, I am sure they would find that we were very anxious indeed to respond to the offer. Our anticipation would be that a normal full day's sitting would meet the Government's wishes.

Mr. Crookshank: If I may speak again, by leave of the House, I would say that we have passed the stage of there being any possibility of there being any new Clauses put on the Paper. It is a question of dealing with the Amendments. This is a reasonable offer, and I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be able categorically to give an undertaking that we could get the rest of the Bill in an ordinary day without any of the "ifs" and "buts" which he seems to be importing into the matter. Otherwise, we shall have no option but to go on, which would inconvenience the whole House, and nobody wants that. I think that an undertaking could reasonably be given by the right hon. Gentleman. He will not expect me to accept the criticism which he has made of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. McNeil: With the leave of the House, may I say that if it is the anticipation of the Lord Privy Seal that nothing substantial will be added to what is on the Paper. I am sure that we shall assist the Government to finish this Bill in one more day.

Mr. Crookshank: Then perhaps we can adjourn, because it is not intended to put down more Amendments, and there cannot be more new Clauses.

Mr. Bing: I do not want to detain the House for more than a minute. One of our difficulties seems to be have been occasioned by the Leader of the House being in the position of the Foreign Secretary. He is sitting beside an ex-Chief Whip and a Chief Whip, which is rather like sitting between M. Bidault and Mr. Dulles. In those circumstances I appreciate his difficulties.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), to be further considered this day.

DOMESTIC SOLID FUEL ALLOCATIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Vosper.]

12.26 a.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: When food rationing ends, early in July, the only major rationing scheme remaining in force will be in connection with the Coal (Distribution) Order, 1943, and the rationing of domestic solid fuel supplies. My purpose in raising this matter tonight is to draw attention to three aspects of the matter of supplies of domestic solid fuel; namely, the price of it, the quality of it and the manifest inadequacy of the present rationing arrangements.
In regard to price, I do not think that any hon. Member would deny that there is grave public dissatisfaction. Coal prices have risen upon no fewer than 17 occasions since nationalisation in 1947, and an all-time high record for price increases has been achieved during the last 12 months. In the latter period the price of house coal has risen on no fewer than six occasions.
Generally, the quality of coal made available for domestic supplies—other than free and concessionary supplies to miners, which are of high quality—is appalling. It is the cause of endless complaints in all the principal towns. In addition, the clumsy rationing system, which is unsuited to present circumstances, is inequitable in its incidence, giving rise to an acute sense of frustration in innumerable households, largely because of the lack of any satisfactory method of registering legitimate complaints about the quality of domestic coal supplies; and the failure of the system, so often explained to the House by successive Ministers of Fuel and Power, whereby a householder can complain to a merchant who is supposed to be able to obtain redress from the National Coal Board in the form of replacement supplies.
In fact, no satisfaction is given, and attempts to raise the matter in this House generally meet with frustration equalled only by that of the aggrieved consumer. I last referred to this matter in this House just over 12 months ago, on 15th April,


1953, when I dealt with house coal supplies generally, their prices, their quality and the inadequacies of the rationing scheme. I had a good deal to say about prices. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary replied on that occasion, and as reported in c. 341 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 15th April, 1953, he told me that my predictions about further price increases in house coal supplies were totally wrong.
I drew attention on that occasion to the fact that house coal prices had risen only a few weeks previously by the largest single amount since nationalisation, namely, 5s. 6d. per ton, and I said that price increase applied only to re-coupment of losses by the National Coal Board in the preceding year. I said that, in 1953, further increases would undoubtedly take place.
My hon. Friend said, quite unequivocally, that I was in error. His words were:
My hon. Friend is in error there. It …
That is the price increase of 5s. 6d. per ton in March, 1953:
… was specifically to prevent a loss in 1953.
My hon. Friend went on:
In addition to that, I would remind him that the Chairman of the National Coal Board, in his 'Face the Facts' conferences that he has been holding, has repeatedly emphasised that 'we have reached the limit of increased coal prices.'
The Parliamentary Secretary went on:
… there is no suggestion that they are to come out of any increase in the prices of coal, at any rate during this year.
That was in 1953. He added:
I wish to emphasise that in case of any erroneous impression which my hon. Friend's words may have caused."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 341–2.]
He was referring to any erroneous impression that I might have caused.
I ask my hon. Friend this evening to take note of the fact that, whereas 13 months ago he twice said that I was in error in predicting that there would be any further increases in the price of house coal, not only have my warnings been borne out in fact, but they have been borne out, in fact, on no fewer than six different occasions. There having been six separate increases in price, amounting in the aggregate to more than 20s. per ton, in the average price of house coal in various parts of the country, and

that has caused the price of house coal to reach the all-time high record of today.
I hope that, tonight, my hon. Friend will at least withdraw the suggestions that he made 13 months ago and readily admit that, not only have we had these six price increases whereas he said that there would be none, in the course of the last 12 months, but that, in the face of the present situation, we are likely to have, in the forthcoming 12 months, price increases at least as big as those which have taken place since April, 1953. I have no desire to be gloomy about this, but at least we in this House might as well face the facts, as the Chairman of the National Coal Board has apparently been endeavouring to do in the course of the last 12 months.
In February, 1954, a wage increase was negotiated between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, the effect of which was to raise the costs of the National Coal Board by no less than £9½ million in a full year. On that occasion the National Union of Mineworkers gave an undertaking that the increased cost entailed in the wage increase would be offset by an increase in production of at least 2½per cent. No increase in production at all has yet taken place this year. In fact, coal production is even lower than last year: and over the first 17 weeks, measured to 1st May, 1954, coal production is at 76·6 million tons compared with 76·8 million tons one year earlier.
The fact is that, notwithstanding the very large increase in the price of house coal that was announced on 14th April, 1954, the biggest price increase of any of the 17 price increases since nationalisation—and this latest price increase varied from 5s. per ton to 17s. per ton—no part of that price advance offsets, in any way, the increased wages given to the miners, announced last February, which will cost £9½ million in a full year.
The whole of that £9½ million has still to be made good, in spite of the increase in the price of coal announced only four weeks ago. I estimate that to offset the £9½ million increase in miners' wages last February, assuming that production does not increase—and three months have already elapsed without there being any increase in production, so it is not unreasonable to suppose that we shall not


see any very great increase in coal output this year—we shall witness a further increase of approximately 7s. 6d. per ton in the price of coal.
That figure will probably be added to the price of house coal within the next three months. I hope that my hon. Friend will not have the temerity to tell me for the third time that I am in error. All his predictions last year proved false. Such an increase as I refer to will be inflationary from the industrial point of view, and will cause very great hardship to the domestic consumer.
A survey was conducted, a matter of 15 months ago, in the early part of 1953, by the Coal Utilisation Council, inquiries being made of 2,000 householders all over the country. The survey provided a report that 24 per cent, of domestic consumers could not afford to take up their coal ration. Since that date, the price of coal has risen by a further 20s. per ton. I predict that it will rise a further 7s. 6d. in the next three months. I consider that before very long, as many as one half of all domestic consumers will be unable to afford to buy all their coal ration. If ever there was an example of virulent rationing by price or the purse, this is it. A very large number of householders, as a result of the arbitrary action of the National Coal Board, are no longer able to take the full maximum allocation, as it is called, of house coal.
As regards the appalling quality of house coal, to which I referred earlier, there is no effective means of ventilating complaints. I will cite two examples of what has happened to me, as a Member of Parliament, and may happen to all Members as a result of the frustrations experienced by the general public. Recently I was privileged to take part in a television programme on the subject of coal. My opponent on the platform was the well-known trade union leader who has recently become President of the National Union of Mineworkers. In the 14 days before that programme, and after it became publicised that I was to take part in it, I was inundated with nicely tied-up little parcels of slate and rock sent from all parts of the United Kingdom by people.
They asked me whether I would please show them on the television screen. The

complainants said that it was futile to complain to the local merchants or to the National Coal Board about the appalling quality of house coal because no redress was available. In fact, I did no such thing. I used to send such parcels, when they came to me in a previous Parliament, to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker), who was then Minister of Fuel and Power. A steady stream of them used to go round from my office to him at his Ministry, until he implored me to stop sending them.
The second example is the sort of thing that happens to Members of Parliament when they hold so-called political surgeries in their constituencies. A typical example occurred to me 14 days ago. A lady constituent came to see me, bringing with her a heavy shopping basket which she put on the table. She invited me to examine its contents, and when I took out the first parcel, neatly wrapped in newspaper, she entreated me to unwrap it. I unwrapped it. It looked like a piece of coal. I squeezed it and it was a lump of unadulterated clay.
That woman had brought down to me nearly half a hundredweight of this material. In desperation she had taken it to her coal merchant, who had said: "It is no good bringing me this rubbish. I have complained endlessly to the National Coal Board during the last three years. Their attitude is: ' You will take this material, or get nothing at all'." It is no use my right hon. Friend shutting his eyes to these causes of complaints. There are thousands of them silently suffered, day by day.
The consuming public are utterly frustrated. They have no outlet for their complaints about the shocking quality of this material which is being supplied by a monopoly and nationalised undertaking. There is no redress, only the abortive attempt to get the local Member of Parliament to do something, and that is what I am endeavouring to do this evening.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) is eternally complaining about the alleged iniquities of private enterprise textile manufacturers. She says that the President of the Board of Trade should initiate prosecutions against them under the Merchandise Marks Act.


The first prosecution in my view, that ought to take place for falsifying the description of an essential material and requirement of home life, is a prosecution by the President of the Board of Trade against the National Coal Board in respect of materials falsely described as house coal but which in fact comprise slate, rock, bits of old tombstones and other incombustible materials, all of which the National Coal Board distribute under the guise of house coal.
In fact, about 25 per cent, of the material sent out today and stated by the National Coal Board to be house coal is practically unburnable. This racket has been going on now for several years, unchecked by successive Ministers of Fuel and Power, and I believe that a change in the machinery for ventilating grievances in regard to the quality of solid fuel supplied by the National Coal Board is long overdue.
I want to say a word about the Coal Distribution Order, 1943—the rationing scheme which has now been in force for more than 11 years. It is the last major rationing scheme in force. When food ration books are destroyed, a matter of only a few weeks hence, coal rationing will be the last war-time scheme remaining. The belief of Her Majesty's Government over the last three years has been that they could not end house coal rationing because it is estimated that it would need an additional 4 million tons of house coal a year to satisfy total un-rationed demand.
In fact, 32 million tons of coal were distributed on the house coal market during the last full year period, and the Ministry of Fuel and Power estimates that if house coal were unrationed, the figure would rise to 36 million tons of house coal in a full year. I suggest that my right hon. Friend has no statistical grounds or evidence whatever for reaching that conclusion, which is purely conjectural. What we have today, though, is quite reliable evidence in my view, that the price of house coal is now so high that an increasing number of householders can no longer afford to buy it, and that coal will ration itself. In fact, if house coal rationing ended tomorrow, it would, in my view, make no difference at all to the global or aggregate consumption of house coal.
Large numbers of people who are in a position to do so have changed over to

oil consumption; large numbers of people —veTy rightly so—who are in a position to do so, have swung over to coke; large numbers of people, instead of using solid fuel in their homes, are using electricity or gas. All forms of available alternatives are being actively called into use because of the difficulty of getting suitable and good-quality supplies of domestic coal and because large numbers of householders are so utterly frustrated with not being able to ventilate complaints and obtain redress for solid fuel they buy under allocation schemes at such high prices, and which contain so much unburnable material.
Many of my hon. Friends and myself have a real financial interest in trying to end this clumsy house coal rationing scheme in view of the high cost to the taxpayer. Today about 1,500 full-time officials are employed in administering the scheme and a large number of part-time officials are also engaged. The total cost to the taxpayer is about £1½ million a year. I believe that, with very little difference to the pattern of consumption as it exists today, and in view of the danger of a substantial further increase in the price of household coal, we could consider at this juncture the abolition of the house coal allocation arrangements without any substantial additional demand being made on our coal resources. Price control should remain.
I wind up on this note. When nationalisation of coal took place the average price of house coal, for grade 4 coals, was about £3 15s. a ton. Today the average price is nearly £7 per ton for that grade of coal. If the Parliamentary Secretary wonders how that figure is arrived at I ask him to consult the published prices for grade 4 coals that are at present supplied in a number of provincial centres. I did not take these centres because of their distance from the coalfields. I took a number of the principal towns in all parts of the country, such as York, where the price is £5 13s. for grade 4 coals, Liverpool, where it is £5 14s., London where it is £6 15s. per ton, Bristol where it is £6 7s., Plymouth where it has now risen to £6 19s. and Brighton where it has risen to £7 5s. Summer prices are 10s. per ton less.
It is futile for my hon. Friend to say that the people can buy the cheaper


coals which are less costly, because we all know that much of the material in the lower grades of coal such as can be used for house purposes is virtually un-burnable in the home. Grade 4 is the lowest grade of coal anyone can reasonably use at home in present circumstances. I imagine that London will soon be paying about £8 per ton for good household coal, and that price will increase before we are very much older. In these circumstances, making a comparison with figures that were only approximately 50 per cent, of those rates seven years ago, and much less than that in earlier years, when this Coal Distribution Order was introduced, I believe it is no exaggeration to say—remembering the findings of the Coal Utilisation Council in their survey 15 months ago, when it stated that only one family in four could afford to buy their ration of coal—that the position today is twice as bad as when that survey was made, and that one family in two cannot afford to pay for their maximum allocation of house coal. Further, during the next few months, the position may become progressively worse.
All these factors drive me to believe that the Coal Distribution Order, 1943, should be urgently re-examined with a view to its termination at the earliest possible date. Simultaneously, I think my right hon. Friend might at least take some urgent action to impress upon the National Coal Board the facts about the appalling quality of house coal that is being supplied in so many cities of this country today, and the need for an early improvement.

12.50 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): My hon. Friend has shot a lot of arrows into the sky tonight and left me only a few minutes in which to collect them from the target; and, therefore, I am afraid, it is not going to be possible for me to reply to all the points he has made. Some I have picked up and should like to try to deal with, because he has made a certain number of statements, a great many of which are entirely correct and accurate, but some of which, I think, do bear a different interpretation from that which he put upon them.
He quoted remarks of mine on the increase in the price of coal in 1953. I speak entirely from my own recollection, because I have not the record before me, and I did not know that my hon. Friend was going to raise the matter, and so I did not look it up. My recollection is that I was particularly careful in that debate to make it quite clear that I was referring solely to the possibility of an increase in prices during that year in respect of increases in costs which had already taken place. As I have made quite clear, in answers to my hon. Friend's questions, that the increase in price this year, 1954, is in respect of anticipated losses which the National Coal Board is likely otherwise to face in 1954. So there is no overlapping there. I do not think my hon. Friend can justly challenge me on the accuracy of the statements which I have made in the past.
I must be exceedingly brief, because I have so little time, about the broad question of the derestriction of coal. It is true that there is no exact estimate of what increased consumption of coal would arise from the derestriction. My hon. Friend challenged me with the suggestion that we had no basis at all upon which to consider any results of derestriction. That is not quite so. That matter was considered carefully, and upon as detailed information as was available, by the Ridley Committee, and the result it arrived at was that the increase in consumption of domestic house coal would be about 4 million tons, and 4 million tons at the present time is an exceedingly substantial increase in the consumption of domestic house coal.
I pass swiftly to the question of the quality of coal and merchants' complaints. There is a perfectly well-known and perfectly well-worked scheme for dealing with complaints about quality. If one buys an article, of whatever nature, that does not come up to one's expectations, the normal thing to do with it is to take it back to the shop and to say, "This is a bad article. Take it back." One can do exactly the same thing with coal—take it back to the coal merchant.
Coal merchants, through an arrangement that the Federation of Coal Merchants has with the National Coal Board, are perfectly prepared to take up with the Board the question of the quality of coal it has supplied, and the Board is


glad to receive properly authenticated and genuine instances of bad quality coal sent out from its pits, so that the Board can trace and verify any examples of carelessness or laxness in the preparation of the coal it sends out.
But if the householder is not satisfied we have, during the past few weeks, given him a still better opportunity, because there is only one real solution to this problem and that is to enable the consumer to change his merchant. If he is not satisfied with what one merchant supplies, let him go to another and see if he can get better service. So this year we have made it possible for consumers freely to change merchants of their own volition during the three summer months starting from May. They can do so without having to show any cause why they wish to change their merchant. That is some step towards freedom. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that that is the ultimate desire, and we have taken certain steps in that direction already.
My hon. Friend referred to expenses and costs. We have amalgamated no

fewer that 300 local fuel offices already, at a very considerable saving to the taxpayer. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman doubtless saw, my right hon. Friend stated, in answer to a Parliamentary question on Friday, that we have streamlined or eliminated the returns of fuel consumption and fuel stocks from no fewer that 28.000 industrialists, which represents a very considerable saving.
I am afraid that that exhausts all the time I have at my disposal to reply to my hon. Friend, but I hope that we may have a further opportunity of considering this subject, in regard to which he has no greater desire than I have to free the consumer from any sort of restriction.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Four Minutes to One o'Clock a.m.